The conclusion is that respondents 1-3 do not bear personal responsibility for the breach of the
The Agreement between the Appellants and the Company.
- In the circumstances of the case, was a foundation laid for tort liability of respondents 1-3, or any of them, towards the appellants? The starting point regarding the existence of such tort liability is that the mere status of a manager as an organ in the corporation does not automatically impose personal liability on him in torts for torts for which the corporation is responsible. However, the manager is not immune from tort liability for actions he took during his tenure as manager. It will bear such liability when it meets all the elements required for the formulation of liability under tort law (Civil Appeal 725/78 British Canadian Builders in Tax Appeal v. Oren, Piskei Din 35(4) 253, 256). Have these elements been proven with respect to respondents 1-3?
- The appellants tried to attribute to respondents 1 3Liability for fraud.
The determination of the trial court, according to which the elements of the tort of fraud were not proven in the case before us, which we confirmed above with respect to the liability of the lawyers, is also applicable to respondents 1-3. Therefore, the claim of fraud raised against them should be rejected. In the margins of this matter, it should be noted that the appellant's affidavit does not indicate that at the time of the registration of the mortgage in 1983, the company was in difficulties (see paragraphs 15 and 16 of the affidavit, where the appellant says that at that time the company was active and building, and that only in 1987 did he receive information about the difficulties the company encountered). From this it emerges that we do not have any objective data from which we can conclude that at the time of registering the mortgage in favor of Mizrahi Bank, the respondents did not believe that they would provide the appellants with the third apartment, or that they would be able to provide them with collateral, if they so demanded (cf. Criminal Appeal 51/88Don v. State of Israel, IsrSC 45(1) 144; Criminal Appeal 223/88 Lari v. State of Israel, IsrSC 34(3) 11).
- On another possible basis for imposing tortious liability on respondents 1. 3He is in a wrongful
The negligence. Similar to the imposition of tort liability on a manager in a corporation on other bases, here too it is required that all the elements required for the formulation of tort liability be met in the matter of the position personally. This includes a requirement that the officer owe the victim a personal duty of care. The officer's personal duty of care does not arise from the very fact that he is in office. Therefore, it is not possible to anchor a director's duty of care in a corporation towards third parties on the general duty of directors to supervise the corporation's operations, and additional data is required that formulates his personal duty of care (see the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of California in the case of . . 582At p(1986) .cal) 573D . 2P 723frances v. Village green owners association