The witness, Adv. Sherman: That's right.
Adv. Bar: In other words, as far as you're concerned, if violators have to pay,
The witness, Adv. Sherman: Material violation"
- Fourth, why there is no room to intervene in the agreed amount of compensation - the fact that the parties were represented at the time of the sale agreement should also not be ignored. This is in addition to the fact that the plaintiffs emphasized, according to which the defendant is an attorney and the defendant has legal forgetfulness. The defendant is an attorney and the parties were represented at the time of their engagement in the agreement.
- Are the plaintiffs entitled to compensation for damages, in addition to the agreed compensation?
- On the face of it, a condition in the agreement that establishes the right to agreed compensation does not detract from the injured party from demanding comprehensive compensation for his damages. In this regard, see section 15(b) of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), which states as follows:
"An agreement on agreed damages does not in itself detract from the right of the injured party to claim compensation in their place under Sections 10 to 14 or to detract from any other remedy due to the breach of contract."
In our case, the parties did indeed agree that the demand for the agreed compensation will not prevent the injured party from demanding any additional other remedy, and in the words of clause 10(c) of the sale agreement - "the provisions of this clause are not intended to prejudice the right of any party to any other additional remedy available to it under this agreement and/or according to the law".
- Although the plaintiffs may claim any other remedy available to them, care must still be taken not to receive double compensation. In this regard, see Civil Appeal 7902/22 State of Israel v. Ter Erme in a Tax Appeal (August 30, 2023, President Judge A. Vogelman, Judge E. Stein and Justice G. Kanfi Steinitz) where it was held as follows (emphases not in the original):
"According to the precedent that has been established, a person injured by a breach of contract is entitled to attach to his claim an agreed compensation alongside other damages or other remedies, provided that there is no situation of a material contradiction between the accumulated remedies and as long as the aforesaid combination does not constitute duplication of the remedy. Further to the above, it was held that when we are dealing with two drugs, each of which is intended to compensate the injured party for a different head of damage, there is no impediment to suing both of them."