From the general to the individual - in this case, the defendant claims that the plaintiffs could have reduced their damage by giving notice of the nullity of the contract and finding another job. During his interrogation, the plaintiff explained why he did not do so. Thus, in lines 17-29 on page 57, Zehavi testified:
"Adv. Abramov: Please tell me what prevented you from ending this interim situation and saying that I am not willing to continue the engagement with you, you violated it as you claim, and move on. Why didn't you do this simple action and said you don't want anymore, don't wait, it's not appropriate for me to be suspended, why? A month, two months, a year, why? The radio turns to you and tells you to come apologize, you don't want to, so why don't you say then you don't want to,
The witness, Mr. Zehavi: I think I'm tied to a contract and I'm still working to my liking. I'm still on the happy rule, they should continue to advertise that I'm performing.
...
Adv. Abramov: That's what you're saying. You say it was a matter of the pie roll and you don't end the situation,
The witness, Mr. Zehavi: without getting paid."
In other words, Zahavi saw himself as someone who was still working. Moreover, like the defendant (and in this regard see the testimonies cited above in paragraph 68 of the judgment), Zehavi also expected that he would return to work. Thus, in lines 29-32 on page 60, Zehavi testified:
"Adv. Abramov: Look Mr. Zehavi, what did you do? Can you, can you present something that you did, an attempt to reduce the damage, an attempt to give some wording that you proposed, of clarification, an apology, something, did you do something? Can you show us something that you did?
The witness, Mr. Zehavi: I waited for them to come and let me know, let's keep working and we'll forget about things."
I will note that at the same time, Zehavi testified that due to his character and in light of his experience and age, he did not apply for work from other employers (his testimony in lines 2-5 on page 63). At the same time, taking into account the additional circumstances, including this - since, as long as the contract was not cancelled, Zehavi's status as an employee remained, and in general, the restriction of competition applied to him - I do not believe that this failure of the plaintiff leads to a determination and accordingly did not reduce the damage, when he did not turn to look for work elsewhere, during the period in which he was suspended.