"...... Some have said that reliance damages are similar to those awarded in torts. However, this is not true. Indeed, damages in torts appear in quite a few cases as reliance damages, but in other cases damages are similar to subsistence damages. The reason for the different application of the compensation rules in the different situations lies in the fact that they are dealing with different rights, and it is the nature of the right that was violated that dictates the law of compensation in respect of it" (Daniel Friedman and Nili Cohen Contracts, Vol. 4, 538-539 (2011) (hereinafter: Friedman and Cohen D)).
The difference between reliance compensation and subsistence compensation does not lie in the method of calculation, but rather in the protected interest. The contractual damages are given due to a violation of the contractual right. In a claim under section 12 of the Contracts Law or due to negligent misrepresentation in torts, in many cases the contractual right has not yet been formed. However, when the laws of torts are called upon to protect a contractual right that has already been formulated (for example, in a claim due to a breach of contract), compensation based on the interest of subsistence, which will be similar to contractual damages, will also be awarded within the framework of them" (ibid., p. 761, note 19, emphases added - 10)"
- After I have discussed the types of compensation, the question that is asked, what is the compensation claimed by the plaintiff in the framework of this lawsuit?
The plaintiff petitioned to obligate the defendants to pay compensation in the sum of ILS 650,000 for the value of the "apartment" as a residential apartment built with a building permit in accordance with the law, in accordance with an opinion dated August 31, 2020 prepared by a real estate appraiser, Mr. Eran Volkan, as well as a sum of ILS 24,000 for loss of income "from the apartment". These damages are positive damages (expectation/existence compensation) that express the profit that would have fallen to the plaintiff had it not been for the breach. These damages can also be seen as compensation for the loss of opportunities that the plaintiff lost in his engagement with the defendant. These damages, despite their classification as reliance damages (negative damages), have similar characteristics to expectation/fulfillment compensation (see Civil Appeal 2720/08 Simon Jan v. Piotr Liebman [Nevo] (August 23, 2012)).