I will also note that despite my determination that the defendant acted in bad faith, I did not find that there is room to award the plaintiff reliance damages by way of estimate, after the heads of damage included in the claim were rejected.
Awarding compensation by way of estimate is possible only when the very existence of reliance and causal connection damage is proven, and the remaining difficulty is mainly in the quantification of compensation. Indeed, section 12(b) of the Contracts (General Part) Law applies with the required changes section 13 of the Contracts Law (remedies for breach of contract), and therefore, the court is authorized to award compensation for damage that is not pecuniary "to the extent that it deems necessary in the circumstances of the case", i.e., by way of an estimate. However, in order to receive this compensation, the injured party must prove the very existence of the damage and the causal connection between it and the breach of duty. The estimate in itself is not a substitute for proving the damage or the expenses. Therefore, even though a breach of the duty of good faith in negotiations may establish grounds for compensation, the plaintiff is still obligated to prove that he suffered damage as a result of the negotiations, as well as to show the causal connection and expectations (Civil Appeal 3666/90 Tzukim Hotel Ltd. v. Netanya Municipality, IsrSC 46(4) 45,60-59 (1992).
In our case, in light of the nature and nature of the alleged damage, it cannot be said that it is difficult to prove with accuracy and certainty the extent and extent of the damage. The plaintiff chose to sue for defined heads of damages, which I have found to be rejected. There is no room for the court to make up for the plaintiff what she lacked, and award her compensation for other heads of damage, which she did not claim in any case. In the absence of proof of a factual basis from which the compensation can be derived, it is not sufficient to determine that the defendant acted in bad faith, especially when it is not a matter of deliberate bad faith or other malicious conduct. It is not possible to rely on a general impression instead of the plaintiff's duty to present a factual basis for the existence of such damage.