In this regard, the plaintiff's representative, Ms. Hofit, even confirmed in her testimony that she spoke by phone with the defendant back in March 2020, so that he would pay the first payment voucher from the electric company.
Subsistence Compensation
- The plaintiff sought to obligate the defendant with subsistence damages, both by virtue of section 10 of the Contracts Law - Remedies and by virtue of clause 9.3 of the agreement, which relates to agreed compensation and in fact also includes subsistence compensation, in the form of the loss of profits caused to the plaintiff due to the breach of contract.
- The purpose of subsistence compensation is "to place the injured party in the same situation as it would have been if the contract had been fulfilled" only, inter alia, Civil Appeal (Haifa) 33263-11-20 Muhammad Agbaria v. Sa'id Sa'ada [Nevo] (with references therein, including Civil Appeal 73206/96 United Mizrahi Bank in Tax Appeal v. Lilouf, IsrSC 55(3) 200). Thus, the remedy of compensation protects the victim's expectation interest - which is the victim's interest in enjoying the performance of the contract ( Civil Appeal Authority 3557/02Y. Gold Tahini and Halva Factory in Tax Appeal v. Bikurey HaSadeh South, paragraph 5 of the opinion of Justice Rivlin [Nevo] (October 28, 2003). As to the difference between subsistence compensation and reliance compensation, it was ruled that:
The purpose of providing compensation for the prevention of profit is to protect the "interest of expectations", also known as the "interest of existence". The laws of contracts and the compensation under them are intended to protect, inter alia, this interest. The contractual compensation is intended to bring the injured party to the situation in which he would have been if the breach of his obligations under the contract had he fulfilled (see: Additional Hearing 20/80 Edres Hamari Banin in a Tax Appeal v. Harlow & Jones G.M.B.A. [3], at p. 267, as well as Friedman and Cohen in their aforementioned book (vol. 1) [28], at pp. 100-103). In this regard, the injured party is also entitled to receive the profit that was withheld from him due to the breach of contract (see the definition of the term "damage" in section 1 of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970). The idea underlying this approach is that the contract establishes a right to receive what is promised in it. Since the breach of contract deprives the injured party of what was promised, the compensation comes to compensate in a way that would be in a situation in which he should have fulfilled the promise. whereas the compensation within the framework of tort law was not intended to fulfill the expectations of the injured party, which were not realized due to the act of tort (see, among many, Civil Appeal 5610/93, supra [2], at pp. 80-81, as well as A. Barak, "Compensation" of Torts Law - General Tort Theory [29], at pp. 571 ff.), they were intended to restore the situation to its former state, i.e., to place the injured party in the situation he would have been in had the tort not been committed in the first place" (Civil Appeal Authority 378/96 Sagi Weinblatt v. Moshe Bornstein Ltd., [Published in Nevo] (17 July 2000), paragraph 16)".