אי-חוקיות, מראית עין או משכון מוסווה? (בעקבות ע"א 6634/15 טופ במרחבי השרון ייזום בע"מ נ' קפלן)

Translated title of the contribution: Illegal, contracts for the sake of appearances or contracts meant to create a security interest?

ניר בר-און, איל זמיר

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

In Top Be‘merhavei HaSharon v. Kaplan, the Israeli Supreme Court held that contracts that purported to be for the sale of land were actually contracts for the sale of apartments to be built on that land. Thus,they were determined to be contracts for the sake of appearances and illegal. Consequently, the contracts were void, and the purchasers were entitled to restitution.In this case-note, the authors argue that the contracts were not made for the sake of appearances, but rather they were meant to create a security interest in the land. While the behavior of the parties was problematic, it should not have rendered the transaction illegal and void. Furthermore,the authors contend that the outcome of the judgment is incompatible with policy considerations regarding illegal contracts. Beyond the circumstances of the specific case, the authors discuss the criteria for there solution of cases that lie in the intersection of the three doctrines:illegality, contracts for the sake of appearances, and contracts that are meant to create a security interest.
Translated title of the contributionIllegal, contracts for the sake of appearances or contracts meant to create a security interest?
Original languageHebrew
Pages (from-to)349-381
Number of pages33
Journalמשפטים
Volumeנ"א
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2021

IHP publications

  • ihp
  • Bailments
  • Contracts
  • Contracts -- Israel
  • Contracts for deeds
  • House buying
  • House selling
  • Judgments
  • Tax evasion
  • Verdicts

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Illegal, contracts for the sake of appearances or contracts meant to create a security interest?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this