The Apropim Rule therefore integrates into the basic values of our system, and is an integral part of an overall exegetical worldview. However, the application of this concept in private law and the process of tracing the subjective purpose of the parties to the contract, while taking into account the objective purpose, indeed requires a complex proceeding and the appropriate and proportionate use of the interpretive tools at the court's disposal, while moving from one matter to the next. The Apropim ruling has paved its way, and its implementation is part of the dynamism and development that characterize the development of our legal system. Our ruling, despite the controversies it raises, rests entirely on the starting point that the Apropim rule stands on its own. We accept that the search for the objective purpose of the contract is not detached from the contractual environment in which it is planted, from the nature of the contract and its concrete circumstances, insofar as they are integrated into the objective principles of the legal and social environment in which the contract was formulated. As in any other matter, the application is examined and formulated from case to case, while maintaining the proportions and balance in which the interpretive process takes place, and from this we should not fear and should not back down. This is a process that is underway and must be implemented with restraint and the meticulous examination required by the nature of the contract, taking into account also its objective purpose, as it is learned, inter alia, from the identity of the parties.
I will only add that in my opinion, in the concrete matter before us, there is not the same deviation from the directions of the parties that the Vice-President warns against. I agree with my colleague Justice Rivlin and agree with the interpretation that he and President Barak gave to the agreement discussed in the original judgment, which is also anchored in the language of the contract. Therefore, I too am of the opinion that the agreement should be interpreted as establishing a connection between the damage caused as a result of the imports that entered the country and the compensation to the growers, up to a level that does not exceed the height of the quota ceiling.