See also and compare: D. Friedman, "Contract Interpretation," in D. Friedman and N. Cohen, Contracts (Vol . 3, 2003), 245 (Friedman, Contracts); M. Mautner, "Judicial Intervention in the Content of the Contract and the Question of the Continued Development of Israel's Contract Law," Iyunei Mishpat 29(1) (September 2005), 17, 51-55 (Mautner).
- This was the case, in our opinion, in the case before us (Civil Appeal 2553/01 Vegetable Growers Organization – Cooperative Agricultural Association in Tax Appeal v. State of Israel, 59(5), 481), that most of the members of the panel sought to implement the spirit of the Apropim rule – a rule that was not controversial – but the implementation went so far as to lead to severe intervention in the contract entered into by the parties and their intentions, as emerged from the language of the contract and from external evidence presented to the court (compare: Mautner, ibid., 53, 77). Thus happened, and the language of the contract, language that supported the petitioners' claim, became unclear; Heavy and clear affidavits submitted on behalf of the growers in support of their position were casually canceled; And an objective purpose became the main interpretive tool – the only one in fact – that tipped the scales.
- Thus, when the petitioner's request for an additional hearing in the judgment in the appeal was placed before me, I changed my mind quite a bit. We all knew that the additional hearing was intended for a new legal ruling, and I asked myself what was the point of deviating from our practice this time and shedding light on the existence of another hearing in a place where it is doubtful that a new ruling has been made. But then I looked at the scriptures; I have given my attention to the application of the Apropim rule by the courts, especially in its original formulation – a broad formulation; and a picture emerges before my eyes that little by little, a new and radical pattern of interpretation in contract law has emerged. It is true that since the Apropim ruling, it is possible that no new ruling has been made, but the meaning of the Apropim ruling is that the officer went further, and every case in which the ruling was applied added a new layer to the original ruling that expanded the power and powers of the court at the time of the interpretation of a contract. In this way, the courses were stacked on top of each other as they erected a high wall that rises beyond the doctrine originally created by the Apropim Rule. Under these circumstances, I have said to myself, it is appropriate for us to stop and seriously consider the continuation of our course when the issue of the interpretation of a contract is before us. This is what I said to my heart, and I ordered another discussion to take place:
Ways of interpreting a contract – the language of a written contract; the circumstances of the conclusion of a contract and oral evidence on those circumstances; subjective purpose and objective purpose; All of these and everything in between, in general and with regard to the interpretation of the contract in question.