- Buying an apartment in Israel
- The Sales Contract
Section 16 of the Contracts Law (General Part), 5733-1973 provides that if “a writer’s error or an error in the contract occurs, the contract shall be amended according to the opinion of the parties and there is no reason to cancel the contract.” The ruling “Come to prevent a narrow interpretation of the speech” writers’ mistake, “as adopted in civil law, and that for section 16 of the Contracts Act, all errors of registration, writing and numbering, made without intent to change or deceive, should be regarded as writer mistakes, or similar errors.
The literature has stated that Article 16 is to bring about harmonization of the real contract and its written expression.
In a situation that section 16 has met and even deals with it, there is a gap between the consent of the parties and the document purporting to embody this consent.
The provision of section 16 is intended to eliminate or reduce this gap. If so, the role of clause 16 is to correct the distortion that has occurred in the process of verbally translating the contractual agreement and incorporating it into a written document, This and nothing more.
While a real error is defined as a contradiction between the imaginary situation and the real situation, a writers’ error can be defined as a contradiction or mismatch between the real contract and the written expression of this contract. If so, a writers’ error is not a real mistake, It presupposes the existence of an agreement between the parties, albeit a deal that is not expressed in the written document, which purports to reflect it.
It follows that quantitative tests are not required to interpret the section and provide an answer to the question, what kind of “writers’ mistake or similar mistake ” and which mistake does not fall within this scope.
That is, it is not the dimensions of the error that will determine whether it is a writers’ error, but the essential principled test – whether what is finally formed will be the document that should reflect the contract entered into between the parties is different from the actual contract entered into, or not.
It is seemingly tempting to think that “a writers’ mistake or similar” is a small mistake, such as a mistake in one letter or a comma misplaced; But in fact, there does not impede that even what appears on the face of it to be a more significant mistake, such as replacing a document with a document, will fall within that category.
This is because the determining test is the substantive test mentioned above and not the quantitative test. If it is clear what is the intention of the parties who created the “real contract,” whatever the quantitative extent of the disruption that occurred at the stage of casting the content of this contract into the “written contract” rule – the written contract can be faithfully and presently reflected the real contract.
The direction of Article 16 is to bring about the harmonization of the real contract and its written expression. The ‘real’ contract shows the parties’ consent within the framework outlined in the law, especially in Chapter 1 of the Contracts Law.
The situation, which sections 16 encounters and even deals with, is a situation in which there is a gap between the consent of the parties and the document purporting to embody this consent.
The provision of section 16 is intended to eliminate or reduce this gap. If so, the role of section 16 is to correct a distortion that has fallen into the process of verbally translating the contractual agreement and incorporating it into a written document.
This and nothing more … a writers’ mistake is a mistake in the written expression of consent. A writers’-error is not an error in the sense of a discrepancy between the situation predicted by one of the parties (or both) and the situation to be sure … While a real mistake is defined as a contradiction between the imaginary situation and the real situation, a writers’-mistake can be defined as a contradiction or lack of a match, between the actual contract and the written expression of that contract.
If so, a writers’-mistake is not a real mistake. It presupposes the existence of an agreement between the parties, albeit a deal that was not appropriately expressed in the written document, which purports to reflect it.