" It is prima facie possible to compare his situation to that of an employee whose dismissal is void and whose employment contract has been recognized as enforceable. As a rule, I accept the determination of the National Labor Court that "the provisions of section 14 of the Contracts (Remedies( Law should not be extended in full to a case in which an employee was unlawfully dismissed, and his dismissal was revoked" (National Labor Court Hearing 47/154-3 Madmoni v. Netivot Local Council [13], at p. The reason for this rule is clear: if the employer unlawfully refrains from employing the employee, while the employee is willing and willing to work, the employee is entitled to receive his full salary, and he should not be obligated to work diligently to obtain another job. and in normal circumstances, this rule may also apply to a member of a cooperative society, whom the association has unlawfully refrained from employing."
For the sake of completeness, I will note that alongside this determination, the Supreme Court further ruled in the Adler case that although the burden of reducing the damage does not apply directly in the case in which the enforcement remedy is claimed, the right of the injured party to petition for the performance of the contract is subject to his general duty to use his contractual rights in good faith (by virtue of section 39 of the Contracts Law). This duty to act in good faith may also include, in appropriate circumstances, a requirement to take reasonable measures to minimize the damage and not to sit idly by, especially when it is clear to the injured party that enforcing the contract is no longer possible or unreasonable (ibid. in paragraph 23 of the judgment).
Finally, the case law held that the burden of persuasion to prove failure to meet the burden of reducing the damage rests with the violator. The infringer is required to show that the injured party could have prevented or reduced the damage by reasonable means, and even to prove to what extent the damage would have been reduced if the injured party had acted reasonably (see Civil Appeal 1229/97 AMI. - International Marketing and Investments Ltd. v. A.R.M. Ra'anana Construction and Rental Ltd., 55(4( 657