In our case, I have been persuaded, to the extent necessary in this proceeding, that at the time of drafting the sale agreement, and with the aim of executing the transaction, the defendants presented the "apartment" to the plaintiff as an "apartment" for all intents and purposes, built according to a lawful permit, despite their knowledge that it was a gasket space that lacked a lawful building permit. The plaintiff relied on this false representation and purchased the "apartment" and thereby suffered pecuniary damage. Therefore, the foundations of the tort of deception are crystallized in section 56 To the Ordinance The Torts, and the defendants are obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused to him as a result of the aforementioned act of deception/fraud. Regarding Adv. Manor's liability to the plaintiff for the tort of "deception/fraud", Other Municipality Requests 37/86 Moshe Levy et al. v. Yitzhak Yehezkel Sherman et al. [Nevo] (10.09.1990) (hereinafter "Parashat Levi") It was held that:
"The liability in torts stems first and foremost from the tort of negligence ..... However, it is not limited to this; since the lawyer, like any other person, may be liable to a certain person for an act of fraud and deception, under section 56 of the Torts Ordinance [New Version], or for accessibility under section 60 of the Torts Ordinance [New Version], or, for example, for breach of statutory duty, under section 63 of the aforementioned Ordinance."
- Professional negligence
In addition to the tort of "deception", the claim against Adv. Manor is also based on the cause of professional negligence.
Adv. Manor argued in her defense that professional negligence should not be attributed to her, since she explained to the plaintiff that the legal service provided by her does not include the examination of the planning status of the apartment, and that he must check this situation through a professional on his behalf, referring to clause 4 of the sale agreement quoted in clause 23 above.