Further to this determination, the court sought in the same matter to examine when the defense of contributory fault does not justify any reduction from the compensation that the tortfeasor must bear. In order to examine this issue, the court divided the situations in which the behavior of one factor caused damage to another factor into two characteristic groups. The first includes cases in which damage is caused, but the damage is not accompanied by a real additional welfare for the other person (such as in the case of a road accident). and the second includes cases in which at the same time as the damage is created, there is a real addition of welfare to the tortfeasor. The second group, the court added, was divided into two basic situations:
The first situation in which the welfare supplement is not similar in character to the damage caused to the injured party. As an example of this, the case was cited in the case of other municipal applications 1338/97 Tnuva Cooperative Center for the Marketing of Agricultural Produce in Israel in a Tax Appeal v. Rabi, IsrSC 57(4) 673 (2003) - where following the addition of silicone to milk without informing the customers, it was determined that damage was caused, which was expressed in negative feelings and a violation of autonomy, while the welfare of the harmmaker revolved around improving milk and reducing costs. In other words, the damage, and the welfare are not of the same type, nor are they necessarily to the same extent, but there is a connection between them, since the same act created the damage and contributed to the additional welfare.
and the second situation, in which the connection between the additional welfare and the damage is deeper. As for this situation, the court cited as an example cases of fraud, in most of which the damage caused to the injured party as a result of the transfer of an asset from the injured party to the tortfeasor constitutes a mirror image of the welfare supplement that the tortfeasor produces. These situations were referred to by the Supreme Court as "transfer cases." The Supreme Court noted that in the vast majority of fraudulent acts, fraud will be included in the first group. (Ibid. in paragraphs 66-67 of the judgment).