The mere existence of a legal provision or regulatory obligation is not sufficient to establish a contractual obligation of the defendant towards the plaintiff. It must be shown that the provision was adopted within the framework of the terms of the tender or the agreement, and not by virtue of the existence of a change in the provisions of the labor laws (Civil Appeal 8422/17 State of Israel Ministry of Transport v. National Council for the Prevention of Road Accidents Ltd. (February 8,2021)).
In other words, it should not be inferred from the existence of the extension order, per se, that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the resulting differences.
00Copied from Nevo For this purpose, an additional binding source is required in the documents of the engagement between the parties that directly imposes the obligation on the defendant, as well as if the circumstances of the matter give rise to a separate obligation by virtue of the duty of good faith, including a duty of disclosure under section 39 of the Contracts Law (General Part), 5733-1973
- 0In the present case, the agreement of September 1,2012, which constitutes the basis of the engagement between the parties, set an agreed, fixed and clear rate of ILS 35.46 per working hour, without any automatic linkage mechanism to expansion orders in the guarding and security industry.
Therefore, in the absence of an explicit provision in the agreement imposing this obligation on the defendant, the plaintiff's argument that the defendant is obligated to pay the tariff differences by virtue of the extension order cannot be accepted.
- With regard to the plaintiff's claim that a local authority that engages with a supplier is obligated to ensure that the supplier meets its obligations under the expansion order, a clear legal distinction must be made between the authority's public status and its contractual liability.
Indeed, an authority contract is subject to normative duality that applies to it both contract law and the principles of administrative law (Civil Appeal 276/09 Taba v. Israel Lands Administration (January 2,2011); Civil Appeal 6518/98 Hod Aviv Ltd. v. Israel Lands Administration (May 23,2001)).