"Adv. Abramov: My question is this: When there is no agreement on the substance of the statement, whether it is proper or not, who decides the dispute on this question? Who gives the instructions according to the contractual framework to which you are committed?"
The accuracy of the dispute between the parties, which focuses on the end of this section, shows that it revolved around a case in which a statement was made retroactively, i.e., after it was made, there was no agreement between the broadcaster and the station as to the question of whether it constituted a violation of the regulation or not. As to such a statement, the dispute focuses on two - first, on the question of whether it is the station's decision that will determine - in the level of the contractual relationship between the parties - that the broadcaster violated the provisions of the law and consequently the contract by stating it. Second, where there is such a dispute, is the broadcaster obligated to accept the station's instructions, and as such, is the station authorized - according to the provisions of the agreement or the law - to give the broadcaster any instructions? And finally, the mother is authorized by the agreement or the law to suspend the broadcaster if he does not comply with its instructions and demands.
- A determination as to the interpretation of the agreement in these two aspects begins with an examination of the language of the clause. With regard to the language of the section, I am of the opinion that on its face and as will be detailed below, in the case where it is a statement that has not yet been said - such as in the case of a pre-recorded and editable program, or in a case where a broadcaster is debating whether to broadcast something or not - the provisions of this section apply and the broadcaster will be subject to the decision and instructions of the station in all matters relating thereto. However, in my view, the language of the section teaches that this is the case in which it will apply (i.e., where it is a matter of "wisdom in advance"), and more specifically that the provision of this section will not apply in a case where the statement has already been made (i.e., in a case where we are dealing with "wisdom in retrospect"), and at least not with regard to the station's decision on the question of whether the statement in itself violated the provisions of the Regulation and thus the broadcaster violated the provisions of the agreement. As a complement, with regard to the station's instructions - I am willing to accept an interpretation and in accordance with it, the station is authorized to give the broadcaster instructions as to how to deal with the situation that has arisen, but - to the extent that the broadcaster is not willing to accept its instructions, in circumstances in which he claims that he did not violate the provisions of the law - the station has only the tools that the contract or the law gives it. As for the case at hand , in my view, the sanction that the station could have taken in this case was to cancel the contract and remove the broadcaster from broadcasting - nothing more.
- I will begin with the question of whether the station has the right to decide whether the broadcaster's statement constitutes a breach of the regulation and therefore also a breach of the agreement between the parties. This question should be answered in the negative. This is first of all because I am of the opinion that from the language of clause 2.6 it can be learned that the right of decision was given, where it is a matter of foreseeable statement and not where it is a matter of retrospective examination of the question of breach of the laws and the agreement, and moreover, since reason does not provide that in the realm of relations between the parties, the party will have the right to decide on the question of whether the other party breached the agreement or not, without such a right being expressly embodied in the agreement.
Thus, and in more detail - with regard to the language of the section, clause 2.6 speaks of a broadcaster's approach, in the event of doubt, to the management for a consultation, as well as to bring the case before the management and to receive its instructions on the matter. Thus, on the face of it, it appears that this is a consultation in advance and not retroactively with the station's management. Moreover, given that this is a consultation that speaks of looking to the future, the decision in question revolved around the question of whether to broadcast or not. However, in the present case, as stated, the question is different and it is - in a case where the statement has already been made, the decision of the defendant's management is decisive - not with regard to the question of whether to broadcast or not - but with regard to the relationship of the parties. In other words, the question here is whether the management will be the one whose opinion will decide the question of whether, by making the statement, the broadcaster violated the rules of regulation and, as a result, even his obligation to uphold them. As stated, according to the defendant's approach, the answer to this question is in the affirmative, and its approach is the one that will decide the question of whether the broadcaster violated the rules of regulation and thus even breached the contract between the parties. This interpretation of the defendant can be learned from the testimony of Adv. Somer, who testified on page 16, lines 16-31: