Another reason for not enforcing the agreement lies in the fact that its enforcement would be unjust in the circumstances of the case.
Although the enforcement remedy is the main remedy in contract law, it is subject to the justification limitation. Section 3(4) of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970 states that the injured party is entitled to enforce the contract, unless the enforcement of the contract is unjust in the circumstances of the case. As ruled, in special circumstances, the court may determine that the enforcement of a monetary obligation is unjust, inter alia, in light of the obligation of a party to the contract to use its right to enforce the monetary obligation, in an acceptable manner and in good faith. In light of the principle of reciprocity, it was determined that the enforcement of the obligation to pay the contractual fee should be parallel to the enforcement of the obligation to receive the service on the part of the violator. The plaintiff did not complete her obligations under the agreement and today she cannot be obligated to perform the service (Civil Case (Tel Aviv-Jaffa District) 3182/98 Tadiran Communications in Tax Appeal v. Bezeq International in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (November 5, 2006), paragraphs 45-46).(The matter of Tadiran)
The Honorable Justice Ronen also ruled in the Tadiran case:
"It also emerges from the case law that when it is not possible to execute the agreement and order mutual enforcement, then the enforcement is unjust (see Shalev, at p. 533, Tel Aviv (Tel Aviv) 841/72 Katz v. Aba'er, IsrSC 5735(a) 567, Application for Leave to Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1084/03 Avraham et al. v. Amot Investments in Tax Appeal (unpublished) [Nevo], Civil Appeal 307/89 Ben Ezra v. Gindi, IsrSC 44 (3) 177). This ruling relies on the principle of reciprocity in the remedy of enforcement. In light of this principle, the enforcement of the charge for contractual wages must be parallel to the enforcement of the obligation to receive the service on the part of the violator. Thus, the contractual balance will be maintained and the victim will be prevented from enriching himself at the expense of the violator (see Katzir at p. 342 and Civil Appeal 426/67 Braunstein v. Balilovsky, IsrSC 22 (2) 29). In our case, apparently, it is not possible to obligate Tadiran to perform the service. Therefore, in light of considerations of justice, for this reason as well, it is not possible to order the enforcement of the payment of contractual wages, without qualifying the terms."