Adv. WeinrothIt is clear that Adv. Weinroth had a personal interest in the affair, as the person who pushed and initiated the transaction, which turned out to be fraudulent, and as the person who received a substantial fee that he sought to keep. I am therefore correct to accept the words of my colleague that Adv. Weinroth is not "a neutral mediator, but rather a real interested party, whose conclusion that the agreement in question is valid serves him" (paragraph 15 of his judgment). But precisely because of this, and because of Adv. Weinroth's experience and skills, he should be placed under the presumption that"An artist who is not a master of her craft." Adv. Weinroth should therefore be appointed He presumed that he was well acquainted with the ruling Botkowski Accordingly, he "stitched" the festive and private ceremony with the two detailed alternatives attached to it, in such a way that it would bind the Patriarchate without allowing it to withdraw from the agreement. In my opinion, Adv. Weinroth did indeed meet the task he set for himself, precisely because of his personal interest. In this context, I will note that my colleague wishes to intervene in the findings of fact of the trial court, which found the testimonies of those present at the ceremony to be reliable, including what was stated in the affidavit of retired judge Arbel (see paragraph 38 of my colleague's judgment). On the other hand, my colleague attributes to me intervention in the findings of fact of the trial court (paragraph 41 of its judgment), but the District Court's determination that "the particulars are at most a preliminary agreement prior to the conclusion of a settlement agreement" is a legal conclusion and not a factual finding.
- It seems that my colleague is making a mistake throughout his judgment in assuming what is sought, and I will bring some examples of this. My colleague calls the detail "auxiliary document" intended to advance the negotiations; states that "There is no dispute that the individual was not supposed to end the negotiations" (emphasis added - 11; paragraph 16 of my colleague's judgment); Regarding the particular, it states that "Clear and visible that this is not a final contract, which concludes the negotiations, but only an interim agreement" (emphasis added - 10; paragraph 22 of my colleague's judgment); believes that Himanuta must be persuaded that the detail is "a binding memorandum of understanding", while Himanuta believes that it is a binding agreement and not a binding memorandum of understanding; It is based on the assumption that the detail is only a station in the negotiations that continued about a year later. As I will clarify below, the fact that the JNF was willing to approach the Patriarchate after the detail was agreed upon, does not affect the validity of the particular, with its two detailed appendices, as a binding agreement.
The main thing is missing from the book. My colleagues hardly give weight to the important fact that the Holy Synod did indeed approve the agreement. In paragraph 94 of his judgment, under the section "Omissions", my colleague notes that the approval of the synod does not constitute compliance with the requirement for the parties' signature. I will mention that the Patriarchate refused to produce the documents that the court ordered to produce, and this should be attributed to its obligation. And most importantly, if the approval of the synod is given, then the failure to sign the agreement constitutes a breach of the agreement.
- This is similar to the agreement between Reuven and Shimon, in which Shimon undertakes to sign the agreement if a certain condition is met, but even though the condition is met, he refuses to produce his signature on the agreement.
Suppose that the contractor Reuven contracts with Shimon the landowner, in a short agreement of one page. According to this agreement, upon the approval of the detailed plan by the local committee, the detailed combination agreement, which is not signed but attached to the agreement, will come into effect, unless Shimon announces that he is choosing the detailed agreement of joint construction, which is not signed but attached to the agreement. We have before us nothing but an agreement to conclude a contract whose terms are known and agreed upon in advance. If the condition of the approval of the local committee is met, and in the absence of a notice from Shimon, it is clear that we have before us a binding and detailed combination agreement for all intents and purposes.