9. If the defendant admits, in writing or before a court, whether within or after the limitation period, the existence of the plaintiff's right, the limitation period will commence from the date of the admission; and an act that contains a part of the right shall be considered as an admission for the purposes of this section.
In this section, "admission" - except for an admission that was accompanied by a statute of limitations.
Our eyes see, Section 9 The law establishes the formal alternative of a "written" confession asParallel and Equivalent The Alternative of Confession "Before a Court". It follows from this that the two alternatives have the same function; Naturally, at the base of both of them is the same purpose. Therefore, in order to understand the purpose of the written requirement in our case, it is necessary to trace the common denominator in the level of purpose between it and the requirement to confess "before a court".
- As noted above, in view of the significance of Section 9 To the law and the rationales underlying it, the written requirement set forth therein should be attributed a purpose relating to verifying the seriousness of the defendant's confession, and to prevent a situation in which he exposes himself, recklessly, to a lawsuit that would otherwise have been statute of limitations. Indeed, it seems that such a purpose can also be attributed to the demand that the confession be given "before a court". However, as noted above, the aforementioned purpose is fulfilled in the requirement of writing, taking into account the characteristics inherent in the ordinary state of things, in the work of writing, as opposed to those that are inherent in the act of speaking. However, speaking before a court in particular differs from the act of speaking in general, precisely in these characteristics: while speaking before a court is characterized by spontaneity, while speaking before a court is characterized by seriousness and consideration of each and every word (See and compare: In Tax Appeal 7734/08 Anonymous vs. Anonymous, paragraph 15 [Nevo] (27.4.2010); Civil Appeal 4/80 Monk v. Monk, IsrSC 36(3) 421, 428 (1982)), and this is similar to the characteristics of writing.
Thus, it seems that the purpose under discussion is a common rationale for the two formal requirements listed In section 9 For the law - a "written" or "before the court" confession.
- However, as stated above, the appellants claim that the aforementioned writ requirement has a different purpose, evidentiary in nature, which is connected to the ability to prove that the defendant did indeed admit to the existence of the plaintiff's right.
Indeed, as part of the process of enacting the law, during the Knesset plenum debate ahead of the second and third readings, a reservation submitted by MK Israel Shlomo Rosenberg was discussed, regarding the formal requirements of a defendant's confession under Section 9 to the law. MK Rosenberg suggested that in addition to a written confession or before a court, it would be possible to recognize a confession made orally in front of two witnesses: