Civil Appeal 1463/22 The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem v. Himanuta Ltd. - part 29

Against the background of our conclusion above that the particularity is a binding agreement, it is this argument of the Patriarchate that gives that the issue of financing by a third party does not extricate it from its obligation to comply with the conditions of the particular.  In other words, given the conclusion that the detail is a valid contract, Aspire to the Patriarchate Method, the issuance of the financing issue by a third party is only in a situation where this issue has been set as a condition for entering into an agreement.  However, as the District Court clarified, the settlement agreement was not subject to the issue of financing and this was not a condition for entering into the settlement agreement.  On the contrary.  This is explicitly evident from the last version of the Settlement Agreement, in which it was stipulated in clause 3 (cited above) that the declaration of the Patriarchate and the JNF's agreement regarding the financing of the payment by a third party are "Without derogating from its undertakingof the Patriarchate to pay the JNF $13 million.  These words were explained by Adv. Elhanani, who stated in his affidavit that Adv. Mughrabi asked to add the issue of funding by a third party for the internal needs of the Patriarchate, and emphasized that This does not change the parties' obligations to each other (paragraph 2 of his affidavit).  Attorney Elhanani made similar statements in his testimony in the trial court, when he noted that he had no objection to the Patriarchate's request to add the said provision to the settlement agreement, provided that it was written that this did not detract from its obligation to pay.  Indeed, according to Adv. Elhanani, the words were written "in plain Hebrew that cannot be interpreted in any other way" (transcript of December 14, 2017, p.  144; and transcript of October 31, 2017, pp.  62-63).  These words are also consistent with the words of Adv. Weinroth, who declared that the patriarchate's counsel clarified that the obligation to pay the JNF does not depend on the receipt of any funding and is not contingent on it, and that this is also the wording of the clause (paragraph 37(b) of his affidavit).