Breach of contract (Jerusalem, 1986), N. Cohen maintains that the tort of causing breach of contract assumes a legal severance between the solicitor and the solicitor (at page 111). When a manager acted within the framework of his authority, and caused the company to breach a contract, there is no such severance, for (at pages 111-112).
" His action is the action of society. It is not possible to disconnect between the manager and the company. The company is a breach of the contract, and the manager is 'out of the picture.' Although the manager caused the company to perform an 'illegal' action (breach of contract), it seems that if it is in the company's best interest, it is still appropriate to treat the manager as an organ of the company."
Even if the appellants had proved that respondents 1 3. They caused the corporation to breach the contract with them, there is no claim in our case that respondents 1-3 or any of them exceeded their authority, or acted contrary to the company's interest or for any foreign motive. In this situation, they cannot be held liable for causing a breach of contract between the company and the appellants (see, for this matter, the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit in the case of ; 1154- . 1153At p(1990) 1149D .2F . 896Grosvenor properties ltd. V. Southmark coSee also . ( 220- . 219, At p( 1961,englewood cliffs) ,officers and directors
- Fueur, personal liabilities of corporate
The result is that no basis was found for the charge of respondents 1-3 towards the appellants. Discussed
Now, in the extent of the damage to which the respondents are responsible, 4 and 5 towards the appellants.
Damage Rate
- We held that the lawyers breached their duty of care towards the appellants by negating the appellants' right to security that would guarantee their contractual rights by their omissions and actions. The main damage that the appellants claim is expressed in the failure to receive the third apartment according to the agreement. What is the extent of this damage caused to the appellants?
The difficulty in determining the extent of the damage in the case before us stems from the fact that, according to the addendum to the contract, the appellants were to receive three apartments, each of which is at least 100 sqm - one is a roof apartment in a building that was built on a plot that the appellants sold to the company, and two apartments in other buildings. In practice, the appellants received two apartments: a roof apartment in the aforementioned building, with an area of approximately 145mm; and an apartment elsewhere, which has an area of 96Mam. Against this background, the question is whether the damage caused to the appellants is equal to the value of a subsidiary apartment 100 square meters; Or should we take into account