Conclusion
- If my opinion is heard, then we will accept the petition and instruct the State to fulfill the obligation it undertook in the contract, and to pay the growers the agreed compensation for the cancellation of the quotas, minus any amount that has already been paid to them.
Vice-President (Ret.)
Judge A. Procaccia:
- This is the essence of the "Apropim" rule as formulated and defined by the then Vice-President, E. Barak (The Apropim case, ibid., pp. 13-311):
"A contract is interpreted according to the intentions of the parties. This intention is the goals, objectives, interests, and plan that the parties have jointly sought to achieve. The interpreter learned about the intention from the language of the contract and from the circumstances external to it. These two sources are "acceptable" are... The transition from the internal source (the language of the contract) to the external source (the external circumstances) is not contingent upon the fulfillment of any preconditions. No prior examination is required whether the language of the contract is clear or not. This will become clear only at the end of the interpretive process...
If the subjective intentions of one party are different from that of the other, there is no possibility of formulating a common subjective intention. The contract will be interpreted in this case, as well as in other cases in which the common subjective intentions are not relevant to the solution of the interpretive problem before the judge, according to his objective purpose. The objective purpose of the contract is the objectives, interests, and purposes that a contract of the type or type of contract that is concluded is intended to be fulfilled. The objective purpose is deduced from "the nature of the transaction that was entered into between the parties...". This is an objective test. It is influenced by the principle of good faith and the system of values it expresses. It is derived from considerations of logic...