Grounds for unjust enrichment
- The cause of unjust enrichment arises where one enriches himself at the expense of the other, unlawfully (Civil Appeal Authority 371/89 Ilan Leibowitz v. A. Eliyahu Ltd., 44(2) 309 (1990)), and this principle is enshrined in section 1 of the Enrichment Law and not in law, 5739-1979 (hereinafter: the Enrichment Law or the Law).
Section 1 of the Law states as follows:
“)a) A person who has not received an asset, service or other benefit (hereinafter - the winner), which came to him from another person (hereinafter - the creditor) must return the prize to the creditor, and if restitution in kind is impossible or unreasonable, pay him the value thereof.
This provision sets three conditions for its application: the first condition is the receipt of an asset, service or benefit (the enrichment); the second condition is that the enrichment comes to the beneficiary from the creditor; the third condition is that the enrichment was received by the winner "not in accordance with a legal right" (see additional hearing 20/82 Address Building Materials in a Tax Appeal v. Harlow & Jones, IsrSC 42 (1) 221 (1988), at p. and Civil Appeal Authority 5768/94 A.S.I.R. Import, Manufacture and Distribution v. Forum Accessories and Consumer Products Ltd., IsrSC 52 (4) 289 (1998), at pp. 358-362).
- There is no dispute that the plaintiff assisted the defendant in preparing the original plan, and there is no dispute that funds were received from the Bird Foundation following the submission of the updated plan, which is very similar to the original plan. In this sense, it is possible to assume that the first two conditions of the cause of enrichment are met, and not in the law. However, I do not believe that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving the principle of "not in accordance with a legal right".
In this regard, the plaintiffs claim that the defendant "burdened" expenses unrelated to the project in order to justify the funds given to it by the fund, when in fact it had minimal expenses, and it was also claimed by them that the defendant was the one who caused the failure of the project intentionally. The problem is that the plaintiffs have not been able to present even a shred of evidence for their claims.
- First, this is an argument that was not made at all in the statement of claim as submitted, nor even in the plaintiff's affidavit, and for the first time it was raised by him explicitly in the framework of his cross-examination, and later in summaries on his behalf. This is enough to postpone it.
Second, and even on the merits of the matter, this is an argument based on information that the plaintiff says he was given in a conversation with the CEO of the Bird Foundation. The plaintiff stated in his testimony: "I don't have documents, it's as a result of a conversation with the CEO of the Bird Foundation, I spoke to him, I tried to get information from him, he of course, about how much money the company received, he of course didn't agree to tell, not only him, others didn't either. But what he did tell him was that in the end the show ended with no project, no nothing, and in order to get out of his way, they showed him some two panels, something like that, which is, really funny." (par. pp. 14, s. 29-33; p. 15, s. 34-36). Needless to say, the plaintiff did not summon the CEO of the Bird Foundation to testify, and this was attributed to his duty (Civil Appeal 465/88 Bank for Finance and Trade in Tax Appeal v. Salima Matityahu, 45(4) 651 (1991)).