Therefore, the claim for the deduction of this sum should be rejected.
- Similarly, the claim of effective infringement, which the defendants claimed, namely that the rent of the new tenant is enrichment at their expense, is rejected. that since I have determined that the breach is the defendants' fault, there is no reason to accept this argument.
Charging the Defendant Personally
- According to the plaintiff, the defendant is a director and manager of the tenant, who owns 100% of the shares of the subsidiary and the person behind the lease agreements with the plaintiff and was the living spirit, the issuer and the person who brought about everything and everything in connection with the conclusion of the agreements and even their breach. The defendant is also a shareholder in the chain of the two defendants, through the Nili Peri Hagan company. The defendant, personally and through the defendants, "deceived the plaintiff by throwing sand in her eyes time and time again, and in his slippery tongue, promising the plaintiff "mountains and hills" and planting in her heart false hopes that he wanted (through defendants 1-2) to fulfill the agreement as written and worded. False promises and hopes, all of which were false, were not incidentally significant financial damages to the plaintiff as detailed" (paragraphs 80-81 of the plaintiff's summaries).
The plaintiff claims that she entered into agreements following false representations made by the defendant regarding his financial capabilities, his ties with a large restaurant business in France, and an equity of ILS 20 million, and as a result he received from the plaintiff the property and the agreement that enabled him to execute a restaurant and hotel on the property.
- The defendant claims that the statement of claim does not show any personal cause of action against him and that all of the plaintiff's claims are against him as the defendants' representative. He further claims thatthe plaintiff's husband testified in his testimony that he did not think of contracting with the defendant personally and that there is no guarantee by the defendant for the defendants' debts.
- In the plaintiff's response, it was argued that the defendant was personally liable for damages and that personal liability should be imposed on him. The defendant deceived the plaintiff around false promises when there was a real fear that the defendants would not be able to meet their obligations under the agreement.
Legal Background
- An organ of a company shall be liable for personal liability, without lifting the veil of incorporation, when it commits a tort itself, violates a statutory duty, or acts in personal and subjective bad faith in the framework of negotiations or the performance of a contract. This liability is imposed on him for his personal actions and omissions, in accordance with tort law or general contracts, and does not violate the principle of the company's separate legal personality. The test for imposing personal liability on an organ is the usual test of tort law, i.e., the existence of the elements of the tort. If the organ commits a tort through society, it will be liable by virtue of the ordinary rule that a person is liable for his action. The applicant must impose personal liability on an organ or officer in a company, there is a duty to point to a specific cause of action against him and to lay an evidentiary foundation that establishes the existence of the elements of the tort personally. Common tort causes include negligence, fraud, and breach of statutory duty.
- See the judgment of Judge David Mintz in CA 8553/19 Alexander Oren Ltd. Yehudit Cohen, November 17, 2020, at paragraphs 22-24:
"The personal liability model states that an officer of a company has no immunity from torts that he personally committed only because he is an organ of the company. The actions of the officer must be examined like any private person, and he will be liable for damages in accordance with the rules that determine this liability (Lotem; CA 8910/05 A. Admon Ltd. v. Weinblatt (September 20, 2007)). This is personal liability that derives directly from the actions and omissions of the officer and is not dependent on the liability of the company (CA 6507/11 Loki Construction Factories Ltd. v. G.D. Eagle Services Company Ltd., para. 15 (March 11, 2014)).