Notification of Cancellation – Unable to Return Cancellation Notice
- Buying an apartment in Israel
- The Sales Contract
The ruling in Israel has applied principles from the doctrine of choice in a conflict situation between the ‘enforcement remedy’ and the ‘revocation remedy’ in certain circumstances.
In this context, it has been stated more than once that a cancellation notice sent by one party to another is constitutive and that he may not withdraw from his notice without the other party agreeing to it.
These things are a powerful force for a state of theoretical conflict between the ‘interest of reliance’ and the ‘interest of existence.’ They do not necessarily apply in cases where a choice of ‘revocation remedy’ or ‘enforcement remedy’ has been made.
This is even if the other party did not rely on the cancellation notice and even if the cancellation notice has not yet changed anything in the world.
But an in-depth examination reveals that this is not the case. The cancellation remedy and the enforcement remedy work against the initial charges of the contract; This is why the practical operational result of each of them is the opposite. The use of the revocation remedy requires the violator and the injured party to be prepared in a different and contrary manner than the use of the enforcement remedy.
In the first case, the parties are released from the contract obligations, while they bind them in the second case.
There may indeed be situations in which the activation of the cancellation remedy or the enforcement remedy will not lead to an immediate change in the set of charges – for example, if the cancellation remedy was activated when the next contractual charge is not close – or even reliance on either party.
However, due to the effect of these remedies against the initial charges of the contract, it is necessary to create certainty, and therefore it was determined that the cancellation notice is the critical moment from which the canceling party cannot withdraw and demand enforcement of the contract without the other party’s consent even if he did not rely on his message.
“The principle of finality of cancellation is intended to release the parties from their contractual obligations in the petition and create legal certainty and security that allow the parties to the contract ‘to exit to a new life on the common assumption that the agreement they entered into has expired and will no longer be revived.
And that the way is open for them to calculate their steps in accordance with this assumption.
The finalization is essential to create equality between venting an unfair advantage to the person who canceled the contract at the other party’s expense.
“Otherwise, the former may cancel the agreement, straddle the fence and consider whether and when he will stick to the cancellation or if and when he will withdraw from the cancellation given market conditions and other data, while the other will remain uncertain about the economic and legal future of the canceled contract, And will have difficulty planning his steps for the future. “