"The (final) purpose of the contract is formulated on the basis of the subjective purposes ("the intentions of the parties") and the objective purposes of the contract. However, in the clash between them, the subjective purpose ("the intention of the parties") has the upper hand... Moreover, within the framework of the subjective purpose, normative preference is given to the intention that arises from the ordinary and natural language of the contract, over the intention that arises from its unusual language or external circumstances... Thus, it is not a two-stage test in which the clear or unclear language of the contract serves as an evidentiary melting point, but rather a one-stage test, in which there is a constant movement from the language of the contract to its external circumstances, while creating a contradictory presumption that the purpose of the contract is that which arises from the ordinary language of the contract. This presumption can be contradicted by the totality of the circumstances" (ibid., at pp. 313-314).
In a discussion on the relationship between the subjective purpose and the objective purpose in the interpretation of contracts, which he edited in his book "The Interpretation of the Contract", President Barak wrote the following:
"Although every contract has both a subjective and an objective purpose, the status of these purposes varies according to the nature of the contract. In the usual bilateral contract (commercial or personal), priority status is given to the subjective purpose. The farther the contract moves away from the paradigm of the ordinary bilateral contract, the stronger the place of the objective purpose... Indeed, the more the "public" nature of the contract increases, the greater the importance of the objective purpose... However, whatever the essence of the contract, there will always be a subjective purpose in it, and the subjective purpose will always prevail in its conflict with the objective purpose" (ibid., at pp. 388-389).