No basis was presented before me to determine compensation in these matters, as well as in relation to compensation for the investments made by the counter-plaintiffs in the stores.
- In addition, the counter-plaintiffs petition for compensation for the damage to their good name and reputation. The amount of compensation claimed at this head is set at the sum of ILS 1 million. After considering the matter, I have not found a way to award compensation for the aforesaid.
Here, too, the Anglo-Saxon matter can be used as a criterion for comparison. In that case, compensation in the sum of ILS 200,000 was awarded in favor of a person with whom a franchise agreement was unlawfully cancelled. However, there we were talking about someone who had been a franchise holder for 31 years, and who had waged a legal battle against cancellation for about 13 years.
The Honorable Judge, as he was then called, Amit noted that "compensation for non-pecuniary damage under section 13 of the Drugs Law is at the discretion of the court and is not given as a matter of routine, except in exceptional situations in which there is a blatant breach of trust or of a relationship of dependency, in situations of malice, or in situations of particularly insulting or offensive behavior" (Anglo-Saxon at paragraph 38). He further added that in the case there, "it is doubtful whether there was room for awarding non-pecuniary damages, since according to Bloom we are not dealing with a relationship of trust but rather with a business relationship at its core" (ibid.). The bottom line is that the amount of compensation for this head has been reduced to ILS 100,000, taking into account the compensation given for the loss of profits.
In the present case, monetary compensation was awarded for the breach of the agreement in relation to the Bat Yam branch. Eligibility for additional monetary compensation was not established. I do not believe that compensation should be awarded for non-pecuniary damages. As noted in the Anglo-Saxon case, in our case, we are also dealing with business relationships at their core, and I did not get the impression that Mr. Max's conduct involved malice, but rather an objective lack of good faith.