On the second floor is the provision that is anchored in clause 6.1 of the Particulars. This provision clarifies that the settlement agreement will not bind the parties but with his signature. The Patriarchate relies on this provision and claims that it cannot be obligated to do anything as long as it has not signed the settlement agreement.
On the third floor stands the provision set out in section 8 of the Detail. This instruction extends its verses to all the instructions of the particular, and it reflects Obligation to make an effort of the parties to cooperate with each other and to carry out the agreements that were anchored in the details as soon as possible.
- An examination of these three provisions, against the background of all the provisions of the Particular, leads to the conclusion that the provision of clause 6.1 of the Particulars does not derogate from the obligation of the parties to sign the Settlement Agreement in accordance with the obligation they assumed in clause 3 of the Particular. However, a difficulty may arise on the first reading ostensibly to reconcile the provisions of the two sections, since since the parties have bound themselves In Duty to sign a settlement agreement, the terms of which were agreed upon in advance, within a certain period of time (clause 3 of the clause), why did they find it appropriate to add that the settlement agreement is devoid of any binding validity as long as it does not Signed (Section 6.1)? A careful examination of the matter removes doubts in this matter.
- First, it is important to reiterate that the signature requirement set out in clause 6.1 of the Detail deals only with the binding power of Settlement Agreement. It has nothing to do with the validity of DetailsAll which stands on its own as a binding contract, and we discussed this at length above. Hence, the obligation that the parties undertook within the framework of the particular, according to which the required conditions are fulfilled are will sign The settlement agreement (depending on the alternative chosen by the patriarchy) is a stand-alone obligation.
In other words, the fact that a signature was required for the purpose of Perfecting the Settlement Agreement into a binding contract, in order to detract from the parties' obligation Sign the Settlement Agreement. In fact, this is the state of things in many types of contracts. It is routine that a party to a contract undertakes to sign some document that is external to the contract, while this future signature is required for the purpose of granting binding effect to the external document. A common example of this is when a party undertakes under the contract to sign a power of attorney or a waiver. In such cases, it is clear that the failure to sign the external document does not detract from the initial contractual obligation to sign it, and there is also no dispute that when the contractual terms agreed upon by the parties are fulfilled, the obligation to sign the external document is Enforceable Contractual Obligation. The absence of signing the settlement agreement therefore does not detract from the obligation that the parties undertook to sign the settlement agreement, in accordance with the alternative chosen by the Patriarchate in accordance with the provisions of the Particular.
- Moreover. The attempt to rely on the requirement to sign the settlement agreement in order to negate the validity of the obligation that the parties undertook to enter into a settlement agreement is not only inconsistent with the entirety of the provisions of the particular, but it is inconsistent with its purpose and even with the conduct of the parties themselves.
It should be recalled that along the length of the particular, a number of provisions were intertwined, including Commitment of the parties to settle the disputes between them in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement (Section 2); A provision whereby when the required conditions are met, the Settlement Agreement Will be signed on the prescribed date (section 3); clarification that the wording of the settlement agreement is final and approved by the parties and their attorneys (clause 4); the approval of the Patriarch of the provisions of the particular; and the approval of the Patriarch that he will act in accordance with the provisions of the Detail and its Appendices, after these were translated and explained to him by the Patriarchate's representatives (section 9). These contractual clauses are explicit and clear, and I found it difficult to accept the thesis that the requirement to sign the settlement agreement, on its own, has the power to empty these provisions of their content.