In our case, alongside the remedy for an agreed compensation award, which as aforesaid, was rejected by me because a binding contract was not perfected, the plaintiff petitioned for a subsistence compensation award in the amount of ILS 171,314, "for the loss of a discount in the amount of ILS 170,000, which the defendant granted her in the price of the apartment, together with linkage and interest differentials as of October 30,2024" (paragraph 2.2.2 of the statement of claim), and alternatively, reliance damages in the amount of ILS 132,738 due to the sale of her apartment in Kiryat Bialik for the purpose of financing the purchase of the defendant's apartment (ibid.; see more: ibid., section 4.2).
The plaintiff based its main demand for a ruling on subsistence damages, as claimed as aforesaid, and alternatively for reliance damages for the sale of her previous apartment, on the claim that the defendant breached his duty to act in good faith in the contractual negotiations between them (clause 2.2.2 of the statement of claim). In these circumstances, it is first necessary to examine whether the defendant conducted the negotiations with the plaintiff in bad faith, and to the extent that this is to be determined, whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation, and what is its scope.
Before we have addressed these remedies, it should be said that in its summaries the plaintiff petitioned for a ruling on subsistence compensation due to conducting negotiations in bad faith, in the sum of ILS 204,569, "for the agreed compensation" (p. 1 of the summaries; paragraph 3(b)). We will also address below the question of the possibility of awarding subsistence compensation in the circumstances of the present case. However, at this stage, I will clarify that since in the statement of claim the plaintiff petitioned for a ruling of "subsistence compensation in the amount of ILS 171,314" only (paragraph 2.2.2 of the statement of claim; The emphasis on the underline in the original) does not have the power to argue in its summaries, for the first time, for a ruling of a higher sum as subsistence damages.