“All options remain on the table to reach negotiated collective agreements that deal with health and safety, unfair treatment, fair wages and working conditions, and the democratic right to free collective bargaining,” he said. 50. Mr. Bloch`s oral evidence supports the birth and purpose of the agreement. He stated that it was his personal desire to acquire land in Israel for a world peaceful monument, and that he gave Avi Meyer authority on behalf of Holyland to negotiate with Skynet and Mr. AvS to acquire the same thing. In considering whether Mr Bloch was a witness to the truth, I agree with the reasonable approach advocated in the English case Gestmin SGOS SA against Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd. and another  EWHC… » “42. …
There is no doubt about the relevant principles of ratification. The legislative acts that constitute ratification are discussed in Bowstead and Reynolds at paragraph 2-070: ratification can be done explicitly or by conduct. Explicit ratification is a clear manifestation of an act whose name has been made an unauthorized act, that it considers the act to be authorized and becomes a party to the transaction concerned. The express manifestation should not be communicated to the third party or the agent. Ratification is implied where the conduct of the person in whose name the unauthorized act was performed provides clear evidence that he or she accepts or acknowledges such an act or transaction, and that it may be implicit in the simple tolerance or inaction of the client. (highlighted samminat)  Qualified counsel, Ms. Tara Carter, stated that the qualified judge erred in concluding that the G.S.O. was valid and binding.
She argued that the qualified judge had not properly balanced the evidence and wrongly relied on the OSG`s recitals to give effect to the agreement. Ms. Carter then referred the Court to the BSG`s first recital and paragrafin 3.5, which qualifies the country as Skynet`s exclusive property in Israel, and pointed out that Skynet had not formally decided to acquire the land until June 2000. It therefore submitted that Skynet did not own the land at the time of the signing of the GSB and therefore related to land that did not belong to Skynet at the time of its execution.  Ms. Carter stated that the qualified judge, having correctly established that there were no shares issued at the time of the seizure of the OSG, erred in finding that this did not render the GSO invalid and non-binding. It also submitted that, after acknowledging that Mr. AvS did not hold shares at the time of the signing of the G.S.O., the qualified judge had wrongly concluded that he could enter into the agreement to separate the ownership and rights of those shares. Ms. Carter stated that the GSO could not be legally applicable, as no shares could have been transferred in May 2000, after being first issued by Skynet in August 2000.
It submitted that only the share issued in August 2000 remained with the company, subject to Mr. Hefti`s discretion with respect to the transfer.  Ms. Carter also submitted that skynet had not subsequently ratified Mr. AvS`s actions in the implementation of the SG. It stated that there was no evidence of ratification and even if it did, it would be legally impossible to ratify the actions of a person who was not appointed to act. Referring to the decisions of Morris/Kanssen, among others  and New Falmouth Resorts Ltd. against International Hotels Jamaica Ltd, it argued that the actions of a director could not be legally ratified before their appointment.