Hence, the approval of the security officer regarding the invoices was of a purely operational-administrative nature, attesting at most to the actual provision of the service. Approval of this type is not equivalent to the approval of an authorized organ with the defendant and cannot replace the binding statutory signatures or confer legal validity on a change in tariffs.
- In addition, the complete absence of any written documentation confirming the change in tariffs between the years 2014 and 2017 undermines the basis for the plaintiff's claim of the existence of an "implied contract", especially when it comes to a local authority that is obligated to document its financial obligations in an orderly and official manner. It is not possible to formulate a conclusion for the creation of an implied contract without a positive, explicit and written decision by the competent organs.
Technical and passive absorption of documents and invoices into the ISA's accounting system does not constitute a substitute for such positive approval, and cannot circumvent the statutory mechanism required for a tariff change.
- Therefore, and in view of the documents that were submitted, I accept the defendant's argument that the mere receipt of the invoices and their registration in the council's books does not indicate recognition of the debt or implicit agreement to the new rates.
This entry, which was made in a separate ledger under the objectionable heading "Viper Security Provision Unpayable", is intended to serve as an internal accounting provision only for disputed amounts.
The explicit purpose of the registration was to prevent the plaintiff's actual account from being credited, as long as she did not produce a credit invoice for the differences.
Recognition of a debt is examined according to an action or document that expresses actual recognition of liability, and not according to the very existence of a unilateral record in the Authority's books (Labor Dispute (Tel Aviv Areas) 49742-11-18 S.A.A. Colleges Network Ltd. v. Meir Vidal (October 18,2020)).
- In our case, this unilateral entry in the defendant's books negates the existence of a representation of an admission of debt or implicit agreement to the increased rates, and testifies that the defendant acted out of active and documented opposition to the alleged debt. Moreover, the defendant presented clear evidence of its consistent opposition to the plaintiff's unilateral demands and never accepted them or gave her consent.
This objection was expressly expressed in the defendant's treasurer's letters dated December 21,2016 and December 11,2017, in which it was stated that the plaintiff had submitted invoices in an amount that exceeded the agreed amount, and therefore she was required to produce credit invoices for the excess tariff differences that were not recognized and approved by the defendant.