In one of the cases, it was noted: "An ox and a donkey shall not plough together, and reliance compensation and subsistence compensation shall not be stopped in protest [...], except in exceptional cases in which the conflict between the interest of reliance and subsistence is purely theoretical and there is no double compensation [...] And this is not the case before us (Civil Appeal 3805/17 Kibbutz Kramim - Agricultural Cooperative Society in Tax Appeal v. Antipod Investments in Tax Appeal (June 25, 2019), Section 4; the judge as he was then called, Amit).
- This is also the case before us. On the one hand, Danan is demanding to receive profits that it believes it is entitled to and that it was denied due to violations by Lehavot, that is, profits that Danan was supposed to derive from the existence of the agreement had it not been for the violations, this is a demand for subsistence compensation. A demand to receive compensation for expenses incurred for the purpose of executing the agreement is inconsistent with this, since if the agreement had been fulfilled, the defendant would not have been entitled to reimbursement for these expenses, which she incurred for the purpose of fulfilling it. In the words of one of the quotes above: "In order to receive subsistence damages, the injured party had to spend the same expenses that were intended for the performance of the contract, for which he is seeking reliance compensation, and therefore they should be deducted from the subsistence compensation."
From the statement of defense to the summaries, Lehavot referred to this difficulty. In the arguments at hand, no answer was found.
- In light of the aforesaid, and where the relevant damages normally in the matter of breach of agreement are subsistence damages (see above and the matter of Lee Netanel Assets, section 18), the demand for reliance compensation in respect of funds spent for the purpose of fulfilling the agreement, should be rejected.
- Regarding this requirement It can also be mentioned that In the agreement Inherited Lahavot has the right to terminate the agreement with 180 days' notice. We discussed above the validity of Teaching This.
In addition, and in any event, the period of the agreement was set at 36 months, with each party having the option of notifying with advance notice that the agreement would not be extended (automatically) at the end of the period.