In their summaries, the defendants argued that this proposal also does not exceed that of the Dayan Group, and the law applies to them.
On the merits of the matter, the elements of the tort of causing a breach of contract were not established
- Against the background of what has been said so far, it is doubtful whether it is possible to attribute to Mr. Nehemia personal liability for the tort of causing a breach of contract, as opposed to attributing it to the company, but for the sake of satisfaction I will examine the tort on its merits. Nor will the channel of essence bring Mr. Knefler to rest and to the inheritance, since I have found that its foundations have not been established.
- The tort is based on five elements, namely, the existence of a valid contract; its breach; the existence of a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the breach; the third party's knowledge of the breach, which may also be constructive knowledge; and that the breach was caused without sufficient justification (the Deri case, at paragraph 178). As the Honorable Justice Kabub noted, the element of justification "is the most complex of the elements of the tort of causing an unlawful breach of contract, and in doing so, the court is granted broad discretion in determining whether there was sufficient justification to cause the breach" (ibid., at paragraph 179).
- In the circumstances of the present case, it is not at all clear that the deal formulated with the Dayan Group was a transaction contrary to the extent of the scope that Mr. Knepfler claims.
Let's recall the background: Mr. Knepler was supposed to receive 24% of the shares of the French company that controls the property companies in France. He was supposed to receive an additional 8% upon completion of the payment of the consideration. However, Mr. Knepfler chose to reopen the agreement, and to make a calculation in relation to about 500,000 euros of the consideration money. This matter enabled not only Mr. Knepfler to raise claims against the company, but also for the company to raise its claims of violations that it attributed to Mr. Knepfler. and his entitlement to the same 8% of the additional shares was reopened (see above in paragraph 158). On the other hand, 24% of the shares that related to the first component of the transaction were transferred to him.