In addition, "where the jurisdiction clause does not clarify whether it is unique or parallel, and when the contract also includes a choice of law clause that refers to English law, the court will interpret the jurisdiction clause as a clause that grants exclusive jurisdiction to the English court. The reasoning given for this is that giving a different meaning to the jurisdiction clause (i.e., characterizing it as a parallel clause) will render it meaningless, since the choice of law clause establishes in itself jurisdiction of the English court" (ibid., at p. 66).
- These statements are written in relation to English law By Carefully, while the parties did not substantiately establish his provisions and instead focused on Israeli law. Their purpose is to show that there is a difference between this law and Israeli law, despite the proximity between the two approaches, compared to the practice in the Continent. No more, but no less.
In any event, in Israeli law, the fact that the contract applies foreign law does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the jurisdiction clause is unique. It is not a miracle of the halakha that the law of the contract serves as a circumstance, which is relevant for the purpose of the interpretive discussion, but this is not a decisive matter, in itself. This is because there must be a separation between the applicable law and the jurisdiction. There may certainly be situations in which the Israeli forum will discuss contractual disputes, which the parties have determined will be decided in accordance with the foreign contract law. This is the state of things, for example, when the agreement between them stipulates a foreign law clause but not a foreign jurisdiction clause, and it is possible to think of other situations to illustrate this point.
As the Honorable Justice Dov Levin ruled, "Indeed, this is the case, and the conclusion cannot be based on the question of whether we have before us a unique or parallel stipulation on the determination, what law will apply, in and of itself, but nevertheless, the law that has been established may give additional weight, which, in conjunction with other weighty factors, such as those we have enumerated above, can support the tipping of the scales towards the conclusion that this is a unique authority" (Civil Appeal 65/88 Aderet Shomron in Tax Appeal v. Hollingsworth G.M.B.H.IsrSC 44(3) 600, 614 (1990)).
- Before concluding this general part, it is requested Warning Note Substantially. It seems to exist Gap Evident between Halacha and between The Act with Respect to the Law Applicable to the Interpretation of the Jurisdictional Clauses. As we have seen, The law instructs that the law of the contract will govern the interpretive question of whether it is a unique jurisdiction clause or Perhaps Parallel. But in reality, the courts in Israel, and in the Anglo-American world, apply local law to the question in dispute. On the practical level, the disputes on these matters have been cutT, in many cases, according to the law of the forum (Craney, at pp. 225-227). It seems that in English law as well, the courts deviate from relying on the law of the contract when they come to deal with questions of interpretation of this kind, and they also apply to the law of the forum that dealt with the stipulation (Avraham-Giller, at pp. 54, 61).
How can this gap be explained? In the reasons in the procedure and in the flavors in the essence.