This is evident, as stated, even during the conduct of the proceeding, and in the gap between the first argument in court that 'the pergola is here and can be assembled' and the last argument that 'it should be loaded onto the ship'.
- The case law emphasized that there should be no identification between the standard of conduct, which deviates from which a contractual obligation may impose a contractual obligation on the company, and the standard that exceeds which justifies imposing personal liability on the organ.
With regard to personal liability for lack of good faith, including at the stage of the performance of the contract, the courts held that it must be shown that the manager is personally (subjective) at fault for acts or omissions that constitute the commission of a tort, and that a violation of the norm of good faith, which dictates a level of objective conduct, is not sufficient.
As an example of this, the court noted conduct in which the same organ understands that a transaction is 'complicated' and nevertheless does not inform the contractor of this (Civil Appeal 10362/03 A. Barazani Services and Transactions in Tax Appeal v. Ben Rahamim Brothers (North) Ltd., October 20, 2009).
- In the Barzani case above, the court ruled that the personal charge is justified only in relation to damages that have a causal connection between them and the breach of the duty of good faith, such as additional funds collected after that date.
In our case, the bad faith actions of defendant 2 were committed after the payment of the first advance, but the withdrawal of the plaintiffs for a period of one year and four months (!) justifies determining his liability not only for the mental anguish caused to them, but also for the return of the advance.
In my opinion, this liability is justified, first of all, because according to the plaintiffs, which was not concealed, defendant 1 went and became entangled over time in various legal proceedings and doubts arose as to her ability to recover the funds collected.