I reject this component. I will explain below.
The plaintiff cannot claim a remedy of cancellation together with an enforcement remedy. On the other hand, contrary to the defendants' claim, she is entitled as a rule to claim a nullifying remedy together with subsistence damages. "The Contracts (Remedies for Breach of Contract) Law, 5731-1970 (hereinafter - the Remedies Law), enumerates a series of remedies available to the victim of a breach of contract. According to Section 2 of the Law, the injured party's right to compensation may come in addition to his right to cancel the contract or to sue for its enforcement. Cancellation of a contract due to a breach gives rise to a mutual obligation of restitution by the parties to the contract (section 9 of the Medicines Law). The fact that a contract was cancelled by the injured party, and as a result the duty of restitution arose, does not detract from the victim's right to claim compensation for the breach of contract, including subsistence damages. Subsistence compensation is intended to place the injured party in the spot where he would have been had the contract not been breached. This expresses the defense that the law interprets to the interest of the parties' expectation of a contract (see, CA 1846/92 Levy v. Mabat Construction Ltd., IsrSC 47(4) 49, 54-57 (1993)). The cancellation of the contract and the execution of restitution do not negate the right of the injured party to receive compensation for the profit that was denied to him due to the fact that the contract was not fulfilled... The interest of existence refers to the gap between the condition of the victim after the violation and the situation he would have been in had the violation not occurred... However, the injured party's choice to cancel the contract, and his insistence on the right of restitution that arises from it, does not infringe on his very right to sue for compensation that will protect his interest because the contract was fulfilled in the first place (see, CA 1846/92, supra;CA 156/82 Lipkin v. Golden Generation Ltd., IsrSC 39(3) 85, 95-96 (Justice S. Netanyahu) (1985); CA 3666/90 Hotel Tzukim Ltd. v. Netanya Municipality, IsrSC 46(4) 45, 74 (Judge M. Cheshin) (1992)). Therefore, we should not accept the position of the trial court, according to which the cancellation of a contract and restitution prevent the injured party from demanding subsistence damages" (the Honorable President Asher Grunis, CA 8946/04 Warner Bros. International Television Distribution v. Zvi Yochman, CPA, and Special Manager of Tevel, Gvanim, August 1, 2010).