In addition, the plaintiff's agreement to undergo a polygraph test as advised by the previous panel that sat in the case does not assist the plaintiff in raising his prestige, and it is better that this was not raised in the framework of the summaries of the claim.
- Therefore, I reject the relief claimed by the plaintiff for compensation in the sum of ILS 180,000 .
Claim of bad faith and compensation for "mental anguish"
- In accordance with the case law, "since the principle of good faith operates within the boundaries of the three interests protected by contract law: the interest of reliance, the interest of expectation and the interest of restitution (see the words of Justice M. Alon, Other Municipal Applications 391/80 Laserson v. Shikun Ovdim Ltd., IsrSC 38(2) 237, 263 (1984)). A person who has not created a legitimate reliance or expectation on his friend and has not taken possession of any property belonging to his friend in the framework of a contractual relationship or against the background of negotiations between the two - will not owe his friend anything by virtue of the principle of good faith (see ibid.) - see Civil Appeal 7/24 Moshe Levy v. Queen of Sheba Properties [published in Nevo] (of November 23, 2025).
By analogy to our case, I do not believe that in the circumstances of the present case, the interests protected by contract law were fulfilled, and that the defendants must owe the plaintiff by virtue of the principle of good faith.
- In addition, it has not been proven before me that the defendant acted in bad faith towards the plaintiff when conducting negotiations to conclude the agreement dated 01.01.2020, in respect of which there was no discretion and agreement of both parties, nor was there any evidence of bad faith conduct during the probationary period or the trial period as the plaintiff put it, but rather business conduct, which did not prove itself and led to the termination of the engagement with the plaintiff due to dissatisfaction with his conduct. In accordance with the testimony of the defendant and the witness, Mr. David Ringel, as well as due to the company's cash flow problems, which it found itself in during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- In accordance with Section 13 of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970, "In a case where the breach of contract has caused non-pecuniary damage, the court may award compensation for such damage to the extent it deems necessary in the circumstances of the case."
In this case, I did not find that there was an agreement that was breached by the defendants. In addition, in accordance with the prevailing trend in case law, compensation for non-pecuniary damage in contract law is not given as a matter of routine, except in exceptional cases "in which the economic damage was accompanied by a blatant breach of the relationship of trust, or of the relationship of dependence that existed between the victim and the breacher, or in situations of malice, particularly insulting or abusive behavior... The judicial approach to awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage is taken by way of limitation and limitation" ( Civil Appeal 8588/06 David Daljo v. Development Personnel in a Tax Appeal [published in Nevo] (of November 11, 2010).
- Therefore, the plaintiff did not meet the burden imposed on him to prove that the conditions required by law and case law were met in order to compensate him for mental anguish, and certainly the defendant's bad faith conduct was not proven.
Debt to the plaintiff in the sum of ILS 28,110 for the months of March, April and December 2020
- As to the plaintiff's claim regarding the existence of the company's debt to him in the sum of ILS 28,110 for the balance of the unpaid sums for the month of March 2020, the sum of ILS 4,760, for the month of April 2020 the sum of ILS 9,350, and for the month of December 2020 the sum of ILS 14,000, I will preface by saying that I am able to accept the claim, as I will detail below.
- The burden is on the defendants to prove that there was an agreement between the parties that the monthly consideration would depend on the number of monthly work hours and that the plaintiff would be paid a partial payment in March and April 2020, while the plaintiff waived the balance of the consideration, and the defendants did not meet this burden.
- On the contrary, it was proven before me that the monthly consideration, which was agreed upon between the parties, is in the sum of ILS 14,000 against a tax invoice to be produced by the plaintiff and that the consideration is global and does not depend on hours or days worked. The evidence is that even though the plaintiff did not work fully in October and November 2020, he was still paid the full consideration in accordance with invoices 105 and 106. The defendant in his cross-examination on page 58 of the transcript of paragraphs 16-25 admits that he paid the plaintiff full consideration in October and November 2020, even though in October they did not work at all, according to him.
- I cannot accept the defendants' argument that it was the plaintiff who chose to record the partial amount of consideration on the invoices for the months of March and April 2020, and that he did not subsequently demand the completion of the sum in the following months, this should be regarded as an agreement to pay part and a waiver of the balance of the consideration.
The defendants have the burden of proving that the plaintiff agreed to waive receiving part of the monthly consideration, and no satisfactory reference was presented for this.