The distinction between the obligation to make an effort and the obligation to achieve a result has significant implications. As a rule, an obligation to obtain a result imposes on a party to the contract "absolute responsibility" to fulfill the obligation imposed on it, when failure to fulfill it would amount to a breach of contract. In contrast, the classification of a contractual obligation as an effort obligation Requires an examination of whether the party to the contract acted reasonably to fulfill The obligation, and the burden of proving that he did not do so is on the other party (see Judgment 2T.A. (Hai District') 722/04 Fin Investments in Appeal Taxes State of Israel v., paragraph 50 and the references there [Nevo] (21.2.2013); Civil Appeal 3865/19 Eliassian v. Shavo, paragraph 31 and the references therein [Nevo] (September 11, 2022) (hereinafter: Matter Elyasian); Civil Appeal 1546/16 Bisan v. State of Israel Development Authority and the JNF, Paragraphs 39-40 and the references there [Nevo] (September 16, 2020) (hereinafter: עניין ביסאן)). In view of the different nature of the two types of obligations, it is clear that the obligation to make an effort is "softer" than the obligation to achieve a result. Thus, for example, a commitment by a party to a contract to obtain approval from the planning authorities (an obligation to obtain a result) is not similar to an obligation to do everything possible to obtain the approval (an obligation to make an effort).
- When we come to understand the nature of the obligation of diligence, we must consider the object of the effort and the relationship between the obligation of diligence and the other obligations of the contract. In the case before us, the obligation to make an effort did not limit itself to a narrow specific obligation (such as obtaining specific approval from an external party), but rather revolved around the cooperation between the parties themselves and all the individual obligations. It is evident from what was said that the parties, who were well represented, were not satisfied with the concrete obligations that were explicitly imposed on them in the particular, nor were they satisfied with the duty of good faith that applied to them by virtue of the provisions The Contracts LawRather, they sought to bind themselves, In addition to this, with a sweeping obligation that obliges them to cooperate with each other and carry out the agreement As soon as possible. It is therefore clear that the obligation to make an effort in the case before us was not intended Weaken or "Soften" the obligations of the parties and the concrete obligations imposed on them by virtue of the particular, but Strengthen and fortify them. From this perspective, it is difficult to reconcile the argument that the requirement to sign in clause 6.1 of the Detail has the power to serve as an "escape hatch" for the Patriarchate and enable it to evade its obligation to sign the Settlement Agreement. Such an interpretation contradicts the concrete obligation imposed on the Patriarchate to sign the compromise agreement (paragraph 3 of the particular) and is contrary to the Patriarchate's obligation to make an effort to cooperate and execute the agreement as soon as possible (paragraph 8 of the particular). In other words: it is clear that relying on clause 6.1 of the Detail in order to evade the contractual obligation to sign the Settlement Agreement is not Reflecting a reasonable effort to achieve the result that the other side wishes for (Shalev and Adar, pp. 118-119); Inna Fulfilling theIt is imperative to act skillfully and take all reasonable measures to achieve the agreed contractual objective (Matter ביסאן, ibid.); and does not fulfill the obligation to act with the diligence and caution that is appropriate in order to achieve the goal (עניין Elyasian, ibid.).
- The conclusion that arises from the aforesaid is that the Patriarchate's attempt to rely on the provision of Section 6.1 of the Detail in order to evade its obligation to sign the Settlement Agreement must be rejected. As detailed, this attempt is inconsistent with the entirety of the particular's provisions, with the circumstances of its termination, and with the conduct of the parties. Therefore, once the conditions were fulfilled and the required approvals set forth in the Detail were received, the obligation imposed on the parties to sign the settlement agreement remained in place. The obligation of the parties' efforts to cooperate with each other and to carry out the agreement as soon as possible was also in place. These obligations were not met by the patriarchy, a failure that amounts to a violation of the particular.
Disagreements after the details are cut offAll
- The Patriarchate claimed that contacts between the parties were held After The cutting off of the details all gave rise to disagreements between the parties on specific issues, due to which the Patriarchate was entitled to withdraw from the negotiations. It should be noted that the manner in which this argument is presented by the Patriarchate stems from its claim that the detail was not a binding contract, so that even after it was read, the parties remained at the stage of negotiations to conclude a contract (a concept in which the District Court was a party, at least alternatively). Further to this line of argument, the Patriarchate argued that in view of the disagreements that arose, it cannot be said that its withdrawal from the negotiations was done in bad faith, and therefore it should not be required to pay subsistence damages.
- As detailed above, my conclusion regarding the validity of the particularall is different, and the particularall should be viewed as a valid contract that meets all of the requirements of the The Contracts Law. This conclusion seems to obviate the need to address the argument of the patriarchate regarding disputes that arose between the parties afterwards, since these disputes do not detract from the binding validity of the particular:
"It should be clarified: Assuming that the initial agreement is valid, the fact that a dispute arises between the parties after it has been drafted does not raise or lower it; Just as the existence of a dispute after the conclusion of a 'regular' contract (as opposed to a preliminary agreement or memorandum of understanding), does not affect the binding validity of the contract" (Friedman and Cohen , vol. 1, p. 349).