"In certain circumstances, it is possible to justify the adoption of a more stringent approach, which requires higher compensation than is required to place the injured party in the place where he would have been had the representation not been made. Thus, for example, there is an approach according to which the person who acted fraudulently should be obligated to pay compensation that will put the injured party in a situation in which he would have been if the representation had been correct (see, for example, section 549(2) of Restatement 2d, Torts [68], which gives the victim of the tort of fraud the option to choose between subsistence damages and reliance damages). This approach is underpinned by policy considerations, at the center of which is the desire to make fraudulent acts unprofitable."
In addition, in the circumstances of the case before us, and insofar as we are dealing with reliance compensation, the plaintiff has the right to be compensated from the defendants for loss of opportunities, which is similar to subsistence compensation, which will lead in practice to the same result.
- The amount of compensation
The conclusion from the aforesaid is that the defendants are obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the value of ownership rights in an apartment built according to a lawful permit, in the sum of ILS 650,000, as of August 31, 2020 (the date of the appraiser's opinion, Mr. Volkan), and at today's valuation (linkage differences only), the sum of ILS 748,983.
Since the plaintiff rented out the "apartment" during most of the period that the "apartment" was in his possession, I did not see fit to award him with interest differentials on the aforementioned amount.
From this sum, the consideration in the sum of ILS 120,000 received by the plaintiff for the sale of the "apartment" according to a contract dated July 14, 2022, together with linkage differences, in the sum of ILS 130,934, should be deducted.
The amount of compensation due to the plaintiff as of today amounts to the sum of of ILS 618,049.
- Injustices in common
The defendants are joint torts under section 11 of the Torts Ordinance, which caused damage to the plaintiff.