This result also corresponds with the nature of the arrangement that was entered into between the JNF Group and the Weinroth Group, which, as may be recalled, was submitted for approval by the trial court and received the force of a judgment. As described above, in the settlement agreement entered into between the parties following the mediation proceeding, it was determined that if the KKL-JNF Group collected funds from the Patriarchate on the basis of its claims regarding the 2008 Settlement Agreement, whether by virtue of a judgment or by virtue of a settlement arrangement, and the Weinroth Group would seek to claim against the JNF Group that it was therefore entitled to a refund (in full or part) of the settlement amount it paid in the amount of $5.5 million, In that case, the parties must come to an agreement in relation to these claims, and if they do not reach an agreement, the matter will be brought to the decision of the mediator, who will serve as an arbitrator for this purpose (clause 4 of the settlement agreement). With regard to this clause in the settlement agreement, Adv. Weinroth testified in his cross-examination that if the claim against the Patriarchate is accepted and the Patriarchate pays Limanuta money, then he intends to ask back the sum of $5.5 million that he paid, an option that he reserved for himself in the agreement (transcript of February 15, 2018, p. 108). Although these words do not in themselves determine the fate of the Patriarchate's claim regarding the deduction of the sums, it seems that they are consistent with the conclusion that the deduction of the sum paid by Weinroth is not supposed to be made out of the charge imposed on the Patriarchate, but rather is located in the level of the relationship between the JNF Group and the Weinroth Group (and we will reiterate that from the case law submitted to the District Court, the amount paid by the Weinroth Group was reduced from the amount charged to Defendants 1 and 4).
[Note: For the avoidance of doubt, this does not constitute an expression of any position on the question of whether or not the Weinroth Group is entitled to any refund from the JNF Group in light of the outcome of the judgment. This issue is ostensibly subject to an arbitration clause in accordance with the settlement agreement entered into between the parties at the end of the mediation process that took place between them. This issue is not before us, so this appeal is not the place to address it.
- In summary, the District Court's ruling, which rejected the Patriarchate's claim that the amount of compensation to be borne by the Patriarchate should be deducted from the amount of compensation to which the Patriarchate will bear the sum of ₪5.5 million paid by the Weinroth Group to Timnota as a result of the mediation proceedings that took place between the parties, and the sum of ILS 2.3 million paid by two other defendants to Timnota in the framework of the proceeding in the Trial Court.
Conclusion
- A long journey, not without bumps, we passed on the way to our conclusion that the Result The District Court's ruling stands in place (although not for its legal reasons). As we noted at the outset, it is difficult to ignore the feeling that the picture that was revealed to the court is a partial picture that does not shed light on all the events, circumstances, interests, and motives of each of the actors in this complex affair. It is even understandable that the Patriarchate, which was also a victim of the fraud scandal, is required to compensate Himanuta in the amount of $13 million.
However, in view of our conclusion that the particulars entered into by the parties are a valid contract, this does not exempt the Patriarchate from its duty to fulfill its contractual obligations, which it undertook at the end of the negotiations, while it was represented, with full awareness, and for its own reasons. Indeed, "We are not interested in the hidden and hidden desires of the parties to the negotiations, but only in what is revealed to the eyes of an independent observer" (Ofer Grosskopf: "Classification of messages exchanged during Negotiations" Law Studies 22 745, 767 (1999)). The bottom line is that once the negotiations have matured into a binding contract, and once the Patriarchate has breached its obligations as set forth in the particular, the victim is entitled to the remedies and remedies granted to it by virtue of contract law for this breach.
- In the circumstances of the present case, the remedy that must be ruled in favor of Himanuta is an enforcement remedy, which means the enforcement of the obligation imposed on the Patriarchate in particular, i.e., the signing of the settlement agreement. On the operative level, given that it is a monetary charge, the translation of the enforcement relief is identical to the relief of subsistence damages awarded by the District Court, i.e., a payment of $13 million, as detailed in paragraph 88 above. Therefore, the Patriarchate's appeal should be rejected.
As for Himanuta's appeal regarding the interest component, it must also be rejected, for the reasons detailed in paragraphs 84-87 above.