No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Digest of Selected Judgments of the Supreme Court of Israel
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2016
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.
- Type
- Case Report
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1989
Footnotes
*
Third year student, Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
References
1 The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, signed in Warsaw on October 12, 1929 and published in K.A., no. 244, v. VIII, p. 479.
2 16 L.S.I. 75, replaced by sec. 15 of the Carriage by Air Law, 1980 (34 L.S.I. 225).
3 12 L.S.I. 12.
4 (1984) 38(iii) P.D. 785.
5 Sec. 2 provides: “A claim for the enforcement of any right is subject to prescription, and if an action is brought in respect of a claim which has been prescribed and the defendant pleads prescription, the court shall not entertain the action; but prescription shall not per se void the right itself”.
6 Magda Libel v. Competent Authority for the Invalids (Nazi Persecution) Law, 1957 (1981) 35(iii) P.D. 29; Yedid Yosef and others v. Prof. Shmuel Kaniel and others (1981) 35(iv) P.D 796; Shimon Abergil v. Peleg and Shetreet Building and Development Co. (1984) 38(i) P.D. 633.
7 27 L.S.I. 117. Sec 25(a) provides: “A contract shall be interpreted in accordance with the intention of the parties as appearing therefrom or, in so far as it does not appear, as appearing from the circumstances”.
8 22 L.S.I. 114. Sec. 59 provides: “An invalid is an insured person whose working capacity has been impaired in consequence of an employment injury and who, as a result, is incapable of doing work which a person of his age and sex is normally capable of doing. In determining whether a particular person is an invalid, a disfiguring defect may be taken into account”.
9 27 L.S.I. 117. Sec. 14(b) provides: “Where a person has entered into a contract in consequence of a mistake and it may be assumed that but for the mistake he would not have entered into it, but the other party did not know and need not have known this, the Court may, on the application of the party who was mistaken, rescind the contract if it considers it just so to do. Upon doing so, the Court may require the party who was mistaken to pay compensation for the damage caused to the other party in consequence of the making of the contract”.
10 Ibid. Sec. 61(b) provides: “The provisions of this Law shall, as far as appropriate and mutatis mutandis, apply also to legal acts other than contracts and to obligations not arising out of a contract”.
11 1 L.S.I. [N.V.] 145. Sec. 92(a) provides: “Where, in a particular tax year, a person had a capital loss on which, had it been capital profit, he would have been liable to tax, the amount to which he would have been so liable shall be set off against tax on capital profit only which he had in that year”.
12 21 L.S.I. 41.
13 L.S.I. Special Volume, p. 82. Sec. 300(a)(2) provides: “A person who does one of the following is guilty of murder and is liable to imprisonment for life and only to that penalty:
(2) with premeditation causes the death of any person”.
14 R. v. Malcherek [1981] 2 All E.R. 422, 429.