(Civil Appeals Authority 10124/17 Abdallah Ashkar v. Fadi Suleiman [Nevo] (January 30,2018))
- The claim for maintenance compensation should therefore be dismissed.
- The statement of claim also claimed damages resulting from the sale of the trucks, as well as reliance and emotional distress damages. However, nothing was argued in the summaries on the matter, and it should therefore be said that the plaintiff abandoned her claim on these issues, and this is sufficient to dismiss this part of the claim (see Mini-Many: Civil Appeal Authority 3149/24 Rabin Magidash v. Yoav Magidash [Nevo] (September 25,2024), para. 13; Civil Appeal 3250/02 Simcha (Sima) Wintzelberg v. A. Diesel Parts Ltd. [Nevo] (June 7,2005)). In any event, these damages were also not proven, for the same reasons that I mentioned above in relation to the subsistence compensation claim. In relation to a claim for mental anguish, there is indeed no need to bring evidence regarding this damage, but the plaintiff is a corporation and as a rule, no compensation is awarded for non-pecuniary damage of the type of mental anguish to the corporation (Civil Appeal 8588/06 David Deljo v. Israel Development Authority Ltd . [Nevo] (November 11,2010)). The plaintiff did not argue why a different ruling should be made in this case, but as I noted above, she did not repeat this argument in her summaries.
- With regard to a claim for reliance damages, I will note that in any case it cannot coexist with the claim for subsistence compensation, since "an ox and a donkey shall not plough together, and reliance compensation and subsistence compensation shall not cease to exist in a hurry... This is with the exception of exceptional cases in which the conflict between the interest of reliance and subsistence is purely theoretical and there is no double compensation" (Civil Appeal 3805/17 Kibbutz Kramim v. Antipod Investments Ltd. [Nevo] (June 25,2019)). Indeed, in cases where there is a real difficulty in proving the extent of the subsistence damages, reliance damages can be awarded instead (Civil Appeal 3666/90 Tzukim Hotel Ltd. Netanya Municipality, 46(4) 45 (1992)), however, as ruled above, there was no difficulty in this case to prove the subsistence damages, so that even if I had evidence to determine reliance damages (and this is not before me) there would have been no room to do so. In addition, I will note that it appears that in fact the main damages of reliance are the damage caused by the sale of the trucks, so that these are overlapping claims, and the plaintiff waived the claim in the matter of the trucks, as stated.
- The result is that the claim should be dismissed in its entirety, andtherefore I do not see the need to discuss the question of reducing the damage (section 14 of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970).
- The claim is therefore dismissed. In light of the result and taking into account that I accept that the plaintiff suffered any damage, I have seen that no costs should be awarded.
Granted today, September 07,2026, in the absence of the parties.