And yes,
"In examining the circumstances of the case, the court must examine the conduct of the parties and determine: whether the service provider or the person performing the work was in good faith, or knew that he should have met the requirements of section 232 of the order [compare: High Court of Justice 556/07 Dadon v. The Society for Educational and Cultural Institutions in Ramle, Founded by the Jewish Agency in a Tax Appeal ([published in Nevo], November 7, 2007); Shalev Contracts, 389]; whether the authority acted in good faith, was negligent or created a false representation towards the service provider or the person performing the work according to which the engagement as it was made is sufficient to bind it [see: Shem-Or, 567-568; Shalev Contracts, 389]; whether the contractual consideration was approved within the framework of the budget for the relevant period; and whether the defect in the engagement is marginal or substantial. After examining all of these, he must determine how to balance between the result that appears to be a just result in terms of the relations between the concrete parties to the dispute and the desired result, taking into account the general purposes that I discussed above. Ultimately, the court must determine which of the parties must bear the consequences of failure to comply with the requirements of section 232 of the order in the circumstances of the concrete case. This decision is not a dichotomous decision, and it is possible to balance the guilt of the parties in determining the amount that the authority must pay, if at all.
As to the determination of the proper salary or the amount of the partial consideration that the authority will be obligated to pay, I will suffice with placing the following "milestones": As I noted above, the rule is that the court will not order the authority to pay the contractual consideration that was agreed upon as proper wages or by way of an order to fulfill the obligation. In addition, in determining the amount that the authority must pay, if any, objective criteria should be given to assessing the value of the work or service that the authority enjoyed, and in any case where the service provider or the person performing the work is not completely in good faith, this lack of good faith should be expressed by reducing the amount in which the service or work is evaluated objectively [compare: Civil Appeal 365/54 Mann v. Ivan, IsrSC 11 1612, 1618-1619 (1957); Barash case, 272, and see further in another context: Civil Appeal 8728/07 Agrifarm International in Tax Appeal v. Myerson ([published in Nevo], July 15, 2010), paragraphs 54-56 of my opinion]."
- In Civil Case (Acre) 1707-11-20 Samih Seva Contractor Works In a Tax Appeal of the Sakhnin Municipality, [Nevo] The Honorable Court summarized the precedent regarding the obligation of a local authority to pay consideration for contractual work carried out for it and gave examples from the case law as follows:
"The summary of the rule is that in exceptional and rare cases, the court will instruct the authority to fully fulfill its obligations, even when a lawful engagement has not been made in accordance with the provisions of section 203 of the Municipalities Ordinance; whereas in other cases, the court may order partial payment, to one degree or another, taking into account the public interest and the considerations of the legality of the administrator on the one hand, and the principles of good faith and fairness on the other hand, against the background of the concrete circumstances of the case at hand.