Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:23:53.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restrictive Terms in a Standard Contract

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Peter Elman
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Cases
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 1972 , pp. 433 - 441
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sec. 1 of the Standard Contracts Law, 1964, 18 L.S.I. 51. For a general critique of the local solution of the problems involved, see Hecht, A., “The Israel Law of Standard Contracts” (1968) 3 Is.L.R. 586.Google Scholar

2 Sec. 1.

3 Adler, Gerald M., “Restrictive Covenants and the Standard Contracts Law” (1970) 5 Is.L.R. 580, 581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Ornan v. Israel Lands Administration (1969) 67 P.M. 284. For a general review of this decision, see Adler, supra n. 3.

5 (1967) 54 P.M. 369.

6 Moas Cooperative Settlement Ltd. v. Spivak (1969) 64 P.M. 258.

7 Sec, 23(1) of the Cooperative Societies Ordinance, 1933.

8 (1970) (I) 24 P.D. 7, 10–11: this case involved a contract for purchase of scrap metal negativing liability of the seller and imposing it on the purchaser alone in respect of any damage, accident or inconvenience caused to the person or property of the purchaser or anyone else in connection with the scrap metal for any cause whatsoever.

9 There are a number of reported cases where the law was not pleaded but the court indicated that it might have been called in aid: see, e.g., Zion Insurance Company Ltd. v. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappji N.V. (1965) (II) 19 P.D. 625, 630 (Marine Insurance Policy); Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.Ltd. v. SS. Anotaria (1968) (II) 22 P.D. 411, 419 (Marine Insurance Policy); Weirauch v. Israel Land Administration (1969) (I) 23 P.D. 491, 493 (Tenancy Agreement); Israel Development and Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. Ben Haim (1969)(II) 23 P.D. 749, 756 (Mortgage).

10 At p. 409.

11 (1965) (III) 19 P.D. 286, 305–6.

12 Cohn J.'s observations in this regard were obiter since secs. 14 and 15 of the Law were not in point and were not pleaded.

13 At pp. 416–17.

14 At p. 417.

15 Hecht, op. cit., 586.

16 Penal Law Amendment (Prohibited Games; Lottery and Betting) Law, 1964. This law was, interestingly enough, enacted three weeks before the Standard Contracts Law. Were games and lotteries therefore in the mind of the legislature on the latter occasion to be either excluded or included therein?

17 At p. 305.

18 At p. 408.

19 At pp. 417–18.

20 This is, with respect, difficult to see on any reading of the section.

21 Under sec. 9 the maximum period of validity of approval is 5 years.

22 At p. 306.

23 At p. 304.