(My emphases - M.B.)
I emphasized the words "not because they wanted to cause a breach of the contract between Knopf and Hasid" because the absence of malice or desire to cause the result that was actually achieved does not raise or lower the tort of causing a breach of contract and does not justify it: Civil Appeal 123/50 A.L. In Ornfreund v. Nahum Drezner, et al., 17 et al., IsrSC 5 1559; IsrSC 6 228, at p. 238. The approach in England has sometimes been different in the past, and therefore I would not rely - as my honourable colleague Justice Beisky did - on the Thomason judgment quoted by him. I also do not believe that Ben Shachar's continued residence in the rented property beyond April 30, 1971 is only a matter of "sit down and do not do", although active intervention is not required at all, in my opinion.
I have also emphasized the words "for their own justified reasons," in order to clarify my view that protecting one's self-interest or protecting the interest of others is not in itself sufficiently justified: see Pratt v. British Medical Association (1919) 1 K.B. 224;
Posluns v. Toronto Stock Exchange and Gardiner (1965) 46 D.L.R. 2d 210, 270 where it was emphasized that the justification argument is accepted only in rare cases.
Moreover, we saw that in the conversations that Adv. Eiger had with him prior to the writing of the letter P/6, as stated therein, Ben Shahar was not interested in entering into a new lease at all. Nor did he bother to respond quickly to P/6, when H.H. Knopf was already about to rent the leased property to a new tenant. It is a clear neglect to take care of one's own interest in an appropriate manner and in a timely manner, and in any case also within the framework of not caring if his remaining in the leased property, if necessary, will harm anyone. Even raising the claim of protected tenants close to the date on which the tenant was supposed to be evicted weakens the practical justification. However, as I have clarified, in any case the defendant 's self-interest in causing the breach of contract cannot be viewed as a legal justification. The situation is different, when the defendant protects a public interest or a legal right of his own, which would have been violated if the contract had been performed: Prosser on Torts 4th ed. (1971) 944, 945 and 46 D.L.R. 2d 210, 270 where it was stated, inter alia: