Hence, it has not been proven that defendant 2 received funds illegally, and therefore the claim should be dismissed.
- Moreover, the fabric of the evidence shows that the assistance provided by the plaintiff to the defendant in the preparation of the original plan is nothing but an act to promote self-interest, which does not entitle to restitution under the laws of enrichment and not in law.
As is well known, there is no written agreement between the parties (except for a non-disclosure agreement), and according to the plaintiff, "it was agreed between the parties that defendant 2 and I would be part of the project, and when funds were received and the project was launched, defendant 2 and I would receive part of the work in the amount of approximately $278,000" (plaintiff's affidavit, para. 8). IN OTHER WORDS, THE PLAINTIFF HIMSELF CONFIRMS THAT IT WAS AGREED THAT WITH THE PROGRESS OF THE PROJECT, THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE EMPLOYED AS SUBCONTRACTORS/CONSULTANTS (FOR DETAILS, SEE PROPOSED PROJECT BUDGET, PAGES 77-80 OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION).
In addition to the aforesaid, Zebeda stated in his affidavit that the parties' agreement was that the plaintiff would assist in the preparation of the plan, and would be included as a subcontractor or consultant at certain stages of the project. According to him, this is an accepted practice, in which professionals assist in the preparation of a plan that is submitted to funding bodies, with the expectation that they will be employed as subcontractors as soon as the project takes shape, and they take on the risk that the project may fail (Zevda affidavit, paras. 13-17).
In other words, it was agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and this was also clearly expressed in the plans that were submitted - both the original and the updated - that if the project is carried out, the plaintiff will serve as a subcontractor and provide work for the installation of an electrical connection of the solar panel (see paragraph 4.J of the original plan, p. 63) and will be employed as an electrical engineering consultant (see section J.5 of the original plan, p. 67).
- In view of this conclusion, the action taken by the plaintiff in assisting in the preparation of the original plan is an action to promote self-interest. In his book The Law of Unjust Enrichment (Vol. 1, Second Edition, 1998), Friedman relates to the fact that "the general principle is that one who acted to promote self-interest is not entitled to restitution from other people who benefited from his action. Thus, a person who has developed a commercial area is not entitled to claim participation in his expenses from property owners in the area, even if the value of their assets has increased or there has been an improvement in their business turnover due to the increased traffic in the area. This principle is recognized in both Anglo-American and Continental law. The reason for the law is clear. The performer of the action expects a profit or pleasure to be derived from the action. This should be his reward, and he is not entitled to additional wages. These words have good power, even if the action did not go well, such as when the construction of the commercial center ended in a loss...”), p. 188).
And this is fine for our purposes.
- More than necessary, I will note that even if the plaintiffs had been able to prove the grounds for unjust enrichment and not in law (which is not the case), in accordance with section 2 of the Enrichment Law, there would have been no room to order restitution.
Section 2 of the Enrichment Law states that: