His real-time business choices also show that there is no causal connection between that deception, which can be classified as purely local, and his desire to move forward with the transaction and maximize its potential. And when he chose to move forward with this outline, he could not argue that Mr. Nehemia should be personally liable for the loss of other business opportunities, or for the other damages he claims.
- Against the background of all this, the lawsuit should be dismissed. This is not the case in which the company's officers must be personally liable for civil tort liability.
I will proceed to present my reasons in detail, but before we get started, a technical note: in this case, the pages of the minutes were submitted in a notice on behalf of the parties to which they were attached, and at the same time the minutes were uploaded to the Net Mishpat website by me as well. Some of the parties referred in their summaries to the latter and some to the other. In my references, I will refer to the protocols in the courtroom, unless otherwise noted; And as much as I refer to the protocols in the message, I will refer to the numbers at the top of the page.
The condition for establishing personal liability of officers in a company towards third parties external to it: establishing a status to sue and direct legal rivalry with them
- In the labor of ongoing litigation, and when all those involved in the work of law move from clarifying one dispute to clarifying the other, and from case to case for tens and hundreds; as they sit in the courtrooms and offices and in the chambers, and walk on the path of arguments, and lie down and stand up, it is easy to forget the basic concepts of standing and legal rivalry. When everyone focuses on questions of substantive laws and evidentiary foundations, the angle of insight is pushed to the fore that without status and without rivalry, responsibility will not arise.
WHILE THE DISCUSSION OF THE RIGHT TO STAND IN PUBLIC LAW IS HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL, STATUS IN PRIVATE LAW DOES NOT RECEIVE MUCH ATTENTION, AND SOME HAVE EVEN NOTED THAT THE CONCEPT IS ALIEN AND STRANGE TO CIVIL JURISTS (SEE TIMOTHY LIAU, STANDING IN PRIVATE LAW: POWERS OF ENFORCEMENT IN THE LAW OF OBLIGATIONS AND TRUSTS 1 (2023)). Still, it is the headstone that supports the entire bridge. It is the legal status that gives the legal power to turn to the court and request judicial relief. And the legal rivalry is the necessary legal connection between the parties to the dispute, and only when it takes place will it be possible to clarify the dispute that is brought to judicial clarification. This and that deserve more attention.