In the circumstances of the case, in which no better evidence was brought as to the extent of the damage, I am of the opinion that the principle under which the court instructed itself is reasonable, and reflects to a reasonable extent the damage caused to the appellants as a result of the fact that it was not sure that it would ensure the receipt of the full agreed contractual consideration. However, in the calculation made by the trial court, there was a mistake: the area of the apartment that the company remained owed to the appellants ( 60 square meters) is not 20% of the area of the apartment agreed upon (100 square meters), but 20% of the area of the three apartments, or 60% of the area of one apartment. Therefore, the damage according to this method does not amount to 000, $23 (% 20 out of 000), $115 is the value of a 100-year-old apartmentm.m.), but on 000, $69 (60% of the price of such an apartment).
The Result
- In summary, the result that emerges from all of the above is as follows:
The appeal against the court's decision to dismiss the claim against respondents 1-3 was dismissed.
The appellants will bear the expenses of these respondents in the appeal in the sum of 000, 5 NIS.
The appeal against the court's decision to dismiss the claim against the respondents 4 5Accepted. Respondents 4 5They will pay the appellants a sum in shekels equal to 000, $69 of the United States, according to the representative rate on the day of the judgment in the District Court. This shekel sum will bear linkage and interest differentials as required by law from the date of the judgment in the District Court. Respondents 4 will also bear 5 In the expenses of the appellants in both instances as well as in the salary Attorney's Fees in the Sum of 000, 25ILS. The appellants' charge for the respondents' expenses 4 5In the trial court, this is nullified.
Judge
Justice T. Strasberg-Cohen:
I agree. Judge
Judge D. Beinisch:
I agree. Judge
It was decided, as stated, in the judgment of Judge T. Or.