Third, the particulars included various types of obligations imposed on the parties: some of them absolute (such as an undertaking to settle the dispute according to one of the two alternatives that were attached); Some of them may stitchשׁ as a commitment to achieve a result (such as the patriarch's commitment to receive the confirmation of the Holy Synod); and some of them require an obligation to make an effort, such as the parties' commitment to execute the agreement as soon as possible.
These insights, as will be explained, are important for the purpose of deciding the appeal before us, and we will discuss their nature in more detail below.
- A careful reading of the Patriarchate's arguments reveals a number of central "obstacles" that, according to it, stand on the way to the conclusion that the status of the individual is that of a binding agreement, namely: Lack of Judgment - Among other things, due to the Patriarch's lack of signature on the agreement; Non-fulfillment of conditions which are set out in detail, in particular the receipt of the required approvals and the timely issuance of a letter of recognition to the Patriarch; and lack of legal validity Regarding the status of the Patriarch at the time of the festive meeting, given that at that time he had not yet received a letter of recognition from the Government of Israel.
As will be explained below, the aforementioned hurdles are not hurdles, and in accordance with the language of the particular, the conduct of the parties and the factual determinations of the District Court, they can be "skipped" relatively easily on the way to the conclusion that the detail constitutes a binding agreement in which the parties entered into. Let's look at things.
Conclusion
- Negotiations mature into a binding agreement when the parties are determined to enter into an agreement whose main terms are known to the parties and agreed upon. The existence of a conclusion is examined by means of an objective-external test (Daniel Friedman and Nili Cohen Contracts Volume A 166-167 (2nd ed., 2018) (hereinafter: Friedman & Cohen)), and a house The Trial learns about its crystallization at the time of the conclusion by means of data that attest to this by looking at it in retrospect, as reflected in "the totality of the circumstances of the matter: the conduct of the parties, the things they said and the actions they did before and after the conclusion of the contract, and the content of the contract itself" (Gabriela Shalev and Effi Zemach Contract Law 159, 164 and the references there (4th edition, 2019) (hereinafter: Peaceful and Plant)).
- Have the parties decided to enter into an agreement? In my opinion, the obvious answer to this is yes. First and foremost, this conclusion is learned from the content of the particular. It should be recalled that according to what is stated in the particular, the parties clarified in Rachel, your little daughter, that they undertook to settle the disputes according to the settlement that was attached as an appendix "whose formula was finally agreed upon and approved by the parties and their lawyers" (paragraphs 2, 4). In addition, in all the details it was made clear that the Patriarch "Certifies what is stated in this detail and its appendices and that it will act in accordance with what is stated therein, after the content of the particular, as well as the contents of the appendices, have been translated and explained to him by the representatives of the Patriarchate" (Section 9).
Second, the testimonies regarding the circumstances of the conclusion of the agreement and the conduct of the parties on that festive occasion also leave no room for doubt. Thus, Judge (ret.) Arbel testified in his affidavit that the meeting was held in the presence of the parties and their lawyers, mostly in English; that at the beginning of the meeting, a copy of a pre-prepared printed protocol was distributed to the participants, detailing the content of the parties' agreements, to which appendices were attached; that Adv. Elhanani read the full detail to those present while translating it into English; that "after he concluded, both parties, including the Patriarch, confirmed their agreement to what was said in the minutes"; and that subsequently, he and Judge (ret.) Mashali confirmed in their signature that the parties had agreed in their presence and undertook to act towards each other in accordance with what was stated therein and to comply with its provisions. Judge Arbel added his impression that "as someone who witnessed the matter, it was clear to me, that this is not an interim stage in the negotiations, but rather a concluding stage in which the parties have expressed their intention to enter into a settlement agreement in accordance with the provisions of the minutes. The meeting was a kind of 'ceremony of agreement', in which the parties declared that they had reached the agreements written in the minutes and undertook to act according to them" (Affidavit of Judge (Ret.) Arbel, paragraphs 4-8).