Second, since according to defendant 2's own version , he opens a separate company to work with each supplier, and therefore when his work with a certain supplier fails, the customers can only be repaid from that company whose activity has ceased. Defendant No. 2's versions of the alleged problems in working with the Spanish supplier from which the plaintiffs' pergola was allegedly ordered, raise concerns that the separation of these companies, along with the passage of time, will leave the plaintiffs with a broken trough.
Therefore, and given that defendant 1 is a sole proprietorship managed by defendant 2 and owned by his spouse, defendant 3, I found that defendant 2 should be held personally liable for all of the plaintiffs' damages.
Lack of Liability for Defendant 3
- Defendant 1 is a single/family company where it has a sole shareholder and the shareholder's spouse is the 'field man' and in practice the manager of the company.
- The plaintiffs had no contact with defendant 3 and they did not claim to have a special relationship with her.
- The plaintiffs did not allege fraud on the part of defendant 3, smuggling of assets, 'thin financing' or any other condition stipulated by law for lifting the corporate veil between the company and its shareholders.
- As described above, the liability of defendant 2 as the company's organ was determined separately, but the facts that were proven in his case do not impose a similar liability on defendant 3 by means of the requested 'lifting of the veil'.
- Therefore, the claim against defendant 3 is dismissed.
The alleged damages
- Refund of the Advance - The plaintiffs are entitled to the refund of the advance in the amount of ILS 35,000, in accordance with Section 9 of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970, and it is estimated to date and a total of ILS 42,910.
- Compensation for price differences - The plaintiffs claimed that they should be compensated for the increase in the prices of such systems over time. According to them, the cost of a similar system currently stands at ILS 263,000, but this claim was based on a price quote that was attached to the plaintiff's affidavit without any reference to identify between the system ordered by the defendants and the system to which this price quote relates. Moreover, the plaintiffs ordered a system from abroad, and therefore there is no basis for comparison with the cost of a new system that is allegedly manufactured in Israel.
The plaintiffs did not install any system in their home and did not present the testimony or opinion of a professional who specializes in this area - and therefore their claim of price increases and damage in this area cannot be accepted.
- Compensation for damage to movables - The plaintiffs claim damage to movables that were on the balcony and were damaged due to the lack of a pergola. I cannot accept this argument.
Beyond the fact that the plaintiff's 'assessment' of the damages does not constitute evidence, since the plaintiffs chose to place on the balcony various movables that could be damaged in the absence of a pergola, they have nothing to blame but themselves, and the defendants should not be held liable for the damage that the plaintiffs allegedly caused themselves with their eyes open.
- Non-pecuniary compensation - In accordance with Section 13 of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970, the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for mental anguish, taking into account the extent of the impact on their private lives.
From the correspondence and the plaintiff's claims, it appears that the plaintiffs expected time and time again to enjoy the pergola on various occasions, and this prevented them from doing so due to the delay on the part of the defendants. The passage of time and the impression that the defendants led the plaintiffs in denial for a long period of time justify substantial compensation in this matter.