"Thus, for example, if it turns out that the Patriarch himself acted to thwart the approval of the agreement by the Synod, this may have consequences in terms of contractual good faith."
- Thus, according to the plain meaning of section 3 of the Particular, the acceptance of the confirmation of the Holy Synod was ostensibly an undertaking undertaken by the Patriarch. However, even if we assume in the interest of the Patriarchate that the receipt of the approval was not an obligation of the Patriarchate to the JNF, but rather a suspension condition (or a precondition for the conclusion of the contract as determined by the trial court), in accordance with the District Court's findings, this condition was met. In view of this determination, I do not see the need to address the question of the status of the Holy Synod in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, as well as the manner in which the District Court has analyzed - which, as stated, classified the need to obtain the approval of the Synod as a prerequisite for the purpose of formulating the Patriarchate's intention to enter into the Settlement Agreement. For the purpose of our decision in this appeal, it is sufficient for us that this approval was granted.
(3) Approval of the authorized bodies in the JNF
- We discussed above the language of clause 3 of the Particular, in which it was determined that the Settlement Agreement "will be brought to the approval of the authorized institutions of the Jewish National Fund, and subject to this approval, a settlement agreement will be signed". As noted, this stipulation was drafted differently from that which concerned the receipt of the confirmation of the Holy Synod, which stipulated that the Patriarch "Will be responsible to receive the approval of the Holy Synod."
At first glance, this stipulation is seen as a condition, given that it subjected the signing of the settlement agreement to the approval of another party, the acceptance of which was uncertain. However, the District Court rejected the possibility that this was a conditional contract, and similar to its approach regarding the receipt of the approval of the Holy Synod, it ruled that the receipt of the approval of the authorized body in the JNF was a prerequisite for the perfecting of the agreement, without which no agreement was concluded at all. Indeed, insofar as this is said regarding obtaining the approval of KKL-JNF officials, there is a reason for the District Court's analysis of the way it was conducted, which is consistent with the ruling that was given on the matter. We'll go into a little detail.
- The Judgment Other Municipality Requests 5042/96 Cohen v. Israel Lands Administration, Jerusalem District, IsrSC 55(1) 743 (1999) (hereinafter: the Cohen) revolves around contacts for a lease transaction that were made between one Mr. Cohen and the Israel Lands Administration. In the correspondence between Cohen and the offices of the Jerusalem District Administration, with whom Cohen came into the matter, it was stated that the execution of the transaction Subject to the approval of the administration's management. The said approval was not given, and the question that was discussed was whether a contract was entered into between the parties. In the judgment, it was determined that the requirement to obtain the approval of the Administration's management Inna Conditions of a suspension and the fixed presumption should not be applied to it In the section 27(II) Law The Contracts. The judge ruled as follows: T. Strasberg Cohen:
"However, this is not the case in our case, when the contract does not require the 'consent of a third party,' but rather requires the approval of the highest organ in the hierarchy of the contracting body. A conditional contract is a contract in respect of which all the requirements for the creation of a contract have been met. The approval of the Administration's management is a stage on the way toincluding thecontract and concluding it, and is not a suspension condition for the existence of a contract that has been perfected and created. Accordingly, the absence of the approval of the Administration's management is lacking in the creation of the contract" (ibid., at p. 753, emphases in original).