For further information, see also Civil Appeals Authority 7879/21 Shayeb Family 2003 in Tax Appeal v. Hanan Levy, Events in a Tax Appeal (March 15, 2022, Judge D. Mintz); Civil Appeal 647/20 Tamaz Elishkov v. A.R.A.B. Bonus in a Tax Appeal (September 2, 2021, Judge v. Sohlberg, Judge D. Barak Erez, Judge Y. Elron); Civil Appeal 10148/05 Teddy Jerusalem in Tax Appeal v. Bracha Katz-Shivan (March 15, 2010, Justices M. Naor, A. Arbel and A. Hayut); Civil Appeal 9678/05 Betimo Company in Tax Appeal v. ARRABON -HK- limited (August 3, 2008, Judge A. Grunis, Judge A. Hayut, and Judge A. Vogelman); Civil Appeal Authority 3960/05 Adv. Naftali Nesher v. Shibli Raif Ben Faiz (December 26, 2005, Judge A. Arbel);
- It is true that the judgment did not include a provision according to which the area to be transferred will be an area bordering the second half of the lot. However, any attempt to hand over a distant area, which does not border the territory of the second half, is condemnable and certainly lacking in good faith. The defendant seeks to empty the judgment and its content, the defendant is even naïve and tries to empty her own consent of its content. and all the defendants seek to hand over land in a manner that in practice sterilizes the settlement agreement and the judgment from its content.
To be precise, what point will the plaintiffs find in an area of 34 square meters that is not directly accessible to them? What was the point of the defendant's agreement to hand over an area of 34 square meters, when she intended, and perhaps even conspired, to hand over a distant area that was emptied of its consent?
- When the interpretation of an agreement leads to a far-fetched result, it is a sign to you that the interpretation is wrong
This is not the first time, in court rulings, that a party to an agreement has acted in bad faith and tries to give its obligations a baseless interpretation. The courts have already dealt with parties to the agreement, such as the defendant and her family, who are trying to change the agreement (or at least part of her family), and have explicitly ruled that when the interpretation of an agreement brings its provisions to a far-fetched result, then the unfounded interpretation should certainly not be accepted. In this regard, see Civil Appeal Authority 7762/20, Anonymous v. Menorah Insurance Company in a Tax Appeal (of April 11, 2021, Judge Y. Amit, Judge D. Mintz, Judge Y. Willner - in paragraph 21 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge Y. Willner); see also Civil Appeal 6847/13, Adgar Investments and Development in a Tax Appeal v. Petah Tikva Municipality (of July 29, 2015, Judge A. Hayut) or Civil Appeal 6421/07, Michael Nagel v. Ganei Afek Local Planning and Building Committee (of September 4, 2015, Judge H. Meltzer).