In addition, the contractual relationship did indeed regulate large parts of the relationship between them, but it is clear that the years that will pass will invite challenges and obstacles, which will have room to overcome together, and in cooperation. In such a situation, each party must take into account, in a serious and weighty manner, the interests of the other party, the partner in the path. If, ordinarily, "in the fulfillment of an obligation deriving from a contract, one must act in an acceptable manner and in good faith" (section 39 of the Contracts (General Part) Law, 5733-1973), then in contractual relationships these are all the more characteristic.
It was found that an increased duty of good faith is the order of the day in relation to the franchise relationships between the parties.
Notes on the duration of the concession agreements in question
- In a closed article, and alongside these mile-long preambles, the enthusiasm should be cooled down a bit. It is doubtful in my opinion whether the franchise owners could rely on a franchise period that would be in fact indefinite, as long as there is no breach of the agreements. The law is not sympathetic to eternal agreements, and the agreements at hand are not a stepchild. It is clear that the parties had a long-term engagement in mind, but by the nature of such activity it is impossible to guarantee its existence forever.
Indeed, in the current circumstances , Max Stock has imposed on itself weighty limitations with regard to its ability to cancel the agreements. In general, when such agreements are established as a closed list of cases in which they may be canceled, this must be respected, and action must be taken in accordance with the contractual agreements (see Other Municipal Applications 5925/06 Bloom v. Anglo-Saxon Property Agency (Israel 1992) Ltd. (published in the databases; 2008; in paragraph 43 of the opinion of the Honorable Justice Danziger) (hereinafter: the Bloom case)).
Therefore, and contrary to Max's claim, there was certainly a possibility that the franchise agreements would have been extended beyond a ten-year period, without Max being able to cancel them. As we have seen, it itself sought to limit them to a period of ten years (including an extension), but respected the concessionaires' desire to change the contractual wording (see above at paragraph 51), and hence the parties had a longer franchise period in mind.