[NOTE: "Israel Observatory Association" is Google's Hebrew-to-English translation of "Watch Tower Society of Israel".]
Original website is in Hebrew, but Google Chrome does a sufficient translation routine. The summary and judgement are quite long (some 16 to 18 pages), else I would have copied and pasted the text entire here.
Terms rack | breach of contract - the court rejected the claim of an association representing the Jehovah's Witness community in Israel, to enforce the rental agreement to a Jewish school grade organization's activities.
Determined that there was no precondition that requires the approval of the municipal agreement, and proof of deception, engagement, had shown no association's representative on the activities planned in the classroom is a Christian missionary activity.
The plaintiff is a nonprofit organization that represents the community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Israel Netanya School Administration signed an agreement dealing with the rental of classroom activities association. Following this agreement and after learning about the nature of this organization is religious activities of Christian missionary body of beliefs contrary to the state education goals, sent a notice of cancellation of the agreement. hence the current prosecution system of the organization is a binding agreement, noting being a school principal send a municipality and the Ministry of Education. thus also argued that the terms of the agreement requires the approval of the Ministry of Education is not a condition precedent that if the technical and especially the school principal denied the existence , since not worked to achieve it. Yeah claimed association that is not a sect, but a clerk religion in many countries and that the contract is not illegal or one contrary to public policy. further argued that the conduct of the defendants are Netanya Municipality and the Association informal education in the city violates the freedom of religion of association as well as the rights of the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty.'s more. assuming that the conduct in question has a violation of anti-discrimination law. light of the association appealed the verdict ordering the enforcement of the agreement as well as compensation ruling without proof of damages for discrimination and wrongful.
Defendants argued the other hand this is not a binding agreement, noting the lack of authority of the school principal to contract as well as give promise of government requires. It is argued that the structure of the school is owned by the municipality and that all contractual arrangements regarding the rental is made using only the municipal association. Defendants also argued that the agreement was conditional upon approval of a third party, the terms of which have not existed. Further allege deception in non-disclosure shape of the association and have the agreement is contrary to the public good in view of its minors who enter the school and inflicts on the character from school to school Jewish state. matter it was even noted that there is exemption in section 3 (d) of the Anti-discrimination, due to the nature and character of the place is the public institution of the State Education minors Jews.
The Court stated:
Judge J.. Keener stated that the complaint should be dismissed. First required the court to whether the contract requires or not. And if the answer to the above question is positive, whether lawfully canceled. For the conditions stated in the agreement whereby inception will be after receiving an activation Ministry of Education and the controversy whether an or condition precedent or not, it was determined that although the mistake Wrote agreement regarding the terms of the required permit, noting that the municipality has the structure and the Ministry of Education, there is nothing to change The obvious conclusion that the required approval of the municipal education administration agreement, and that this approval was a condition precedent.
There is no dispute that received approval from the municipality's education agreement that the precondition is not held, the court was required according to the association that since the principal of the school did not work for getting approval, prohibited the defendants from relying on the non-existence of the precondition. Determined that Appellant's argument must be rejected when it was proved that the principal turned to municipality, which is expressed most clearly was that not endorse the activities. contrast, the Court rejected the argument that the lack of authority of the school principal to sign the said agreement, taking into account an extension of the defendants or any of them. But states that where no grounds to cancel the agreement, you can not use the detour of "governmental promise" to validate validly canceled the liability under the law of contracts.
Which according to the deception established duty of a representative organization which conducted its negotiations to find out about the planned activities of the community of Jehovah's Witnesses as well as violation of said duty. Thus also determined that the school principal was not clotting agreement, he was aware of the provisions. Having regard to the provisions Court held that non-disclosure is a deception that has to justify the cancellation of the agreement. contrast, the court rejected the claim to be the contract contrary to public policy. noted that the activities of the organization is not outlawed, and that even if there are association and values that are unacceptable to the majority of the , the value of the right of association and the right of members of her community to freedom of religion, requires not be determined, lease Rank's activities will be considered as a contract contrary to public policy. Ultimately the Court held that there are two causes of validity be struck down the agreement are non-fulfillment of the condition precedent and grounds deception.
Which fundamental rights and claim of discrimination was determined that although there is no dispute that the association and its members basic rights highlight of which is the right to freedom of religion and worship, this is not absolute rights but these can limit the realization of the public interest in mind. It was determined that restrict them in the circumstances of this case, taking into account the organization's dominant purpose in spreading the Gospel by his followers among others, the fact that the area of the school is not depleted in the afternoon and evening, but continue to reach children for various activities. Determined that the rights of the Association retreat in this case because the public interest and rights. It also determined that the public interest to maintain the unique nature of the school in terms of the religion of the students increased in this case clearly desire the association of the Christian hold the Htcnsoiotih, rituals and prayers in a Jewish school instead. Thus also determined that there was exception enumerated in section 3 (a) of Anti-discrimination, due to the public nature of the place is the school.
All in all Magistrate's Court ruled that the complaint should be dismissed.