Indeed, even if it is difficult for the court to locate the common intention of the two parties, it will do everything in its power to do so. The fact that at the time of the trial each of the opposing parties claims that his intention was different from that of the other – there is nothing wrong with it. This is the nature of any contractual dispute. The judge should not shy away from this, and determine that it is not possible to detect a common intent. The court must carefully examine the various pieces of evidence that the parties bring before it, be convinced, and determine what their true intentions were at the time of the conclusion of the contract, when their wishes met. The judge should not be in a hurry to determine that the subjective purpose of the contract cannot be located. The courts must refrain from creating "a feeling or 'atmosphere' whereby no contract is clear, everything is open, and any result can be achieved through interpretation" (Friedman and Cohen, in their book, at p. 245; see also Shalev, in her book, supra, at pp. 406-410; Civil Appeal Authority 3128/94 House Cooperative Society v. Sahar Insurance Company, IsrSC 50(3) 281, 304). It is not the role of the court to create a more reasonable contract for the parties than the one they created for themselves. The objective examination will be conducted only when it is not possible to determine the subjective common intention of the parties.
I would like to add that the aforesaid statements, regarding the need to look beyond the written contract in order to trace the intentions of the parties, are not new to us. Justice Turkel noted this back in 1980 when he noted:
It seems that the rulings of the courts in recent years increasingly point to the same trend, to permit the morality of the written words and to arrive at the investigation of the true intention, which was before the eyes of the callers (see: Civil Appeal 453/80 Ben Natan v. Negbi, IsrSC 35(2) 141, 145. See also, for example: Civil Appeal 324/63 Segal v. Gorjani Magi Ltd., IsrSC 18(4) 371, 373; Civil Appeal 46/74 Mordov v. Shechtman, IsrSC 29(1) 477; Winograd v. Yedid , supra, at pp. 799-800).