Justices Matza, Dorner and Procaccia agreed with Deputy President Orr. Our case is indeed a civil law, but it is also a dispute in which one party is the state, and the goal of "bringing about the right legal outcome" remains. Therefore, in my opinion, since we have reached this point and the parties have raised the entirety of their arguments, it is inappropriate and unjust that we have not said what we have said to the substance of the matter as well. As for the substance of the matter, my opinion is the same as that of the Vice-President (ret.) M. Cheshin.
- In the judgment in the appeal, my colleague Justice Rivlin noted that "a thorough reading of the material attracts 'somewhat' in the direction of the interpretation of the appellants [the vegetable growers]", but it is necessary to locate the intentions of the parties to the contract. In my opinion, the least that can be said is that the interpretation of the contract within and in it is "somewhat" biased in favor of the vegetable growers. With regard to the purpose of locating the intentions of the parties, I am a partner in the analysis of my colleague the Vice-President (ret.) M. Cheshin.
- In this context, I would like to add my position on the issue of affidavits. My colleague Justice Rivlin noted in the judgment in the appeal that the infrastructure laid out by the District Court in its judgment – the factual and the legal one – was lacking. I agree with that. The king's way of deciding between two opposing positions in affidavits is through an investigation of the affidavits. The parties refrained from doing so. My position is that in the circumstances of the case, the absence of a counter-investigation works against the state's position.
- In my opinion, it cannot be accepted in our case that a declarant on behalf of the State has preference over a declarant on behalf of the vegetable growers. In his judgment in the appeal, the Deputy President (ret.) found things regarding the state's position, to which I wholeheartedly agree:
"I cannot conclude the discussion with the evidence brought by the parties, without referring to the inappropriate things written by the state in this context in its summaries before us. I have already noted that the state did not bother to address the substance of the statements of the appellants' witnesses and deal with them. She expressed her only reference to them in the following words, in the framework of a summary of her discussion of the content of the contract: