00Everyone agreed that the case was dealing with a unique jurisdictional clause. The dispute touched on the question of whether it had the power to bind even a party that was not directly connected to the agreement at hand. This dispute does not relate to our case.
0In contrast to the Honorable Justice Stein, the Honorable Judge, as he was then called, Sohlberg distinguished between the interpretation of agreements and the interpretation of jurisdictional clauses. With regard to the latter, it was held that "a foreign jurisdiction clause shall be interpreted in a linguistic-strict manner" (ibid., at paragraph 19). "The stipulation will not apply, except in cases where it is found that it is explicit and clear, and no interpretive procedure is required to locate it, or to give indications in it. This is similar to the rule regarding 'interpretation against the drafter', which was developed in the case law of this court, and is currently enshrined in section 25(b1) of the Contracts (General Part) Law, 5733-1973. If it is found that there are two legitimate interpretations, and even if one of them is more plausible, this will not save the stipulation; 'If there is doubt, there is no doubt'" (ibid., para. 20).
In other words, there is no interpretive procedure here. "If it becomes clear that the language is unclear and unequivocal, this will immediately lead to the 'death' of the stipulation, even if through an interpretive-linguistic proceeding, without recourse to external circumstances, it would have been possible to reach the conclusion that such a stipulation was indeed established. This is in contrast to other clauses in the contract, in respect of which, even if it is a 'closed contract,' drawn up between two business parties, there is no impediment to carrying out an interpretive proceeding within the boundaries of the language, in order to determine the intention of the parties" (ibid., at paragraph 21).
It was held that the strict interpretive approach with respect to theinterpretation of foreign jurisdiction clauses is warranted, since "the exercise of a foreign jurisdiction clause is not similar to other clauses in a contract. Stipulating foreign jurisdiction is tantamount to 'unconventional weapons'. A foreign jurisdiction clause locks the gates of court for a party to the contract, and violates his right to access the courts. For this reason, the stipulation will be respected only if its language is clear and explicit" (ibid., at paragraph 22).