In many cases, the provisions of the stipulations are not sufficiently sharp, and do not provide a clear answer to the question of whether they are parallel or perhaps unique. There can be several reasons to talk. "The first is the lack of understanding or knowledge of the parties regarding the proper wording according to the law. The second is the distraction of the parties in the wording of the stipulation. Third, a deliberate decision by the parties to an agreement, due to constraints in negotiations or due to avoidance of a decision on a matter that may lead to a general disagreement on the framework contract, etc" (Shahar Avraham-Giller, "On Rules of Interpretation of Jurisdictional Clauses, Choice of Law and the Concept of International Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (following Civil Appeal Authority 5493/21 Lagziel v. R.S. Design Ltd.), Laws 18 167, 171 (2023) (hereinafter: Avraham-Giller article)).
- And when an interpretive dispute arises, it is not always easy to resolve. This is the case from the usual perspective of contract interpretation. But the contractual angle does not stand alone. We are dealing with a dispute that falls within the scope of private international law. Hence, the dispute has foreign connections, which go beyond the scope of the local judicial forum. And then the question arises, according to which law should the interpretive dispute be decided? Is it in accordance with the law of the forum, i.e., the local law? Is it in accordance with the law of the contract, to the extent that the parties have determined the law of the contract? Is it in accordance with the law of the presumed contract, which is determined in accordance with the relevant connections to the dispute, to the extent that the parties have not established an explicit law that will apply to the contract between them?
With regard to internal Israeli law - the law of the forum, a precedent was applied to a machine in the case of Lagziel, to which I will now turn.