(The agreement was attached to Appendix 5 to Kotler's affidavit).
Upon signing the agreement, the defendant signed a letter of authorization:
"...We hereby permit the Compensation and Control in a Tax Appeal and/or anyone on its behalf to review and photograph any agreement, assessment, protocol, account, measurement map, billing demand, correspondence and any other document relating to the lessee's obligations in lease fees to the Tel Aviv Municipality, including the submission of inquiries, inquiries and requests of various kinds." (Appendix 7 to Kotler's affidavit).
The plaintiff's main argument is that most of her work focused on the early stages of the project, i.e., marketing the idea and formulating the group, while referring the group members to legal treatment by Adv. Meyuhas.
The defendant, for its part, is of the opinion that the language of the contract is completely clear and should be adhered to. Accordingly, the plaintiff has explicit obligations - dealing with the authorities and funding the cost of the expert opinions. Since the plaintiff did not meet these obligations, even partially, the plaintiff's right to fees was not formed. In addition, in the end, the plaintiff did not bring about savings for the defendant.
Regarding the interpretation of a contract, we find the words of section 25 of the Contracts Law, (General Part), 5733-1973, in its relevant wording for the times in question (Amendment No. 2) of the Civil Appeal of 2011, as follows:
(a) A contract shall be interpreted according to the intentions of the parties, as it is implied in the contract and the circumstances of the matter, but if the intentions of the parties are expressly implied by the language of the contract, the contract shall be interpreted in accordance with its language.
(b) A contract that can be interpreted differently, an interpretation that fulfills it is preferable to an interpretation according to which it is void.
(B1) A contract that is given to different interpretations and one of the parties to the contract has priority in shaping its terms, an interpretation against it is preferable to an interpretation in his favor.