With respect to the violation of the provisions, the Section 4 of the law that shall apply, inter alia, Sections 12(b) and15 of the Contracts Law, and Section 9 Law Grants the court broad powers to change the contract and grant other remedies. Among other things, the court may "cancel the contract or the condition or change it, all to the extent necessary to bring it into accordance with the requirements of the law, and as the case may be," and "order the return of any sum that the lender received from the borrower not in accordance with the provisions of this law... and to give any other instruction that seems to be just in the circumstances of the case." The Different Routes See Civil Appeal 8222/19 Peretz v. Pond, paragraph 18 (December 7, 2020)).
The Supreme Court noted that in the exercise of the authority under Section 9 Fair Credit Law, Considerations similar to these Which are weighed in deciding the question of the consequences of an illegal contract in general. Regarding such a contract, the grantor The Contracts Law The court has broad and flexible powers to "reach a result that gives adequate weight to the illegality of the agreement, and at the same time, does justice given all the facts and facts that are necessary in the matter" (Name, paragraph 33). It was noted that consideration must be taken, inter alia, "the degree of performance of the contract, the degree of severity of the illegality, the degree of relative guilt in the conduct of the parties to the contract and their good faith, the consequences of the performance or non-performance of the contract on the interests of third parties, and more" (Name, paragraph 32).
- In case here, Indeed There is some ambiguity in which of the provisions of the second agreement relating to the interest in respect of the third part of the loan (see chapters e(2)(2)(3)-(4), paragraph 75 and hereafter below).
However, the impression is that this is a lack of clarity created by the wording of the Meticulous, and not in bad faith; It will act in accordance with the defendants' obligation, as they had priority in shaping the terms of the agreement (as stated in a footnote 9 above); And in my opinion, specifically with regard to the amount of interest in the sum of NIS 2,700,000, which the plaintiffs petition to reduce, there is no ambiguity, since it is an interest in a clear and specified amount.