Judge Yael Willner:
I agree.
| Yael Willner
Judge |
Judge Ruth Ronen:
I agree with the conclusion of my colleague, Justice Y. Kasher. As my colleague clarified, the agreement that is the subject of the proceeding before us is a valid brokerage agreement that was duly drafted in writing. The only question is who are the parties obligated by virtue of it, and specifically – whether it is possible to oblige Kestenbaum, who is not in dispute to have not actually signed the agreement, by virtue of the brokerage agreement. In order to examine this question, we must turn to the general law.
Thus, for example, by virtue of the general law, an agreement (any agreement, including a brokerage agreement) may bind a sender even if he himself is not a signatory to it, when the person who actually signed the agreement is his agent. Similarly, and as I will clarify, an agreement (any agreement, including a brokerage agreement) may bind a partner in the partnership, even if he himself is not actually a signatory to it.
For example, if the agreement had been signed by Kestenbaum as Koffler's attorney, Koffler would have been obligated by virtue of this agreement, even though his signature does not appear on it. This is by virtue of the general law: in the context of the aforementioned example, we are dealing withthe Courier Law, 5725-1965, which states that "the agent of a person like him, and the act of the emissary, including his knowledge and intention, obligates and acquits the sender as the case may be" (section 2 of the Law). By virtue of the law of emissary, the sender (Koffler in the above example) is therefore obligated to perform the act of emissary (Kestenbaum in the aforementioned example).
Similarly, in accordance with the provisions of the general law (in this case – the partnership law), it is necessary to examine whether the action of one of the partners (Koffler in this case) binds the other partner – Kestenbaum. As my colleague clarified, by virtue of Section 14 of the Partnerships Ordinance [New Version], 5735-1975, the answer is yes. The section states that each partner is an agent of his other partners; And like the agent in accordance with the law of emissary, actions performed by the partner in the usual way are also binding on the other partners.