Cause of breach of contract – what does the claim mean and who can be sued in practice?

What constitutes a breach of contract?

Breach of contract is a legal claim that deals with a situation where a contract between two people or entities is breached. Following third-party interventionAn act that causes a breach of contract is considered a tort under the Torts Ordinance.

The relevant legal provision to the issue of causing a breach of contract

The issue of breach of contract is regulated under Article 62 of theTorts OrdinanceThis section states as follows:

(A) Whoever knowingly and without sufficient justification causes a person to breach a legally binding contract between him and a third person, commits a wrong against that third person, but the third person cannot be compensated for this wrong unless he suffers financial damage as a result.

(on) For the purposes of this section, the relationship created by marriage shall not be considered a contract, and a strike and lockout shall not be considered a breach of contract.

In order for this tort to exist and for it to be possible to sue the person who caused the breach of contract (the third party), five elements must be present:

1. There is a valid contract.
2. The contract was broken.
3. There is someone who caused the breach (a causal connection must be proven between the breach of contract and the third party's liability for the breach).
4. Knowledge – It must be proven that the third party knew about the contract and knew that his actions could lead to its breach.
5. Lack of justification – the third party knew that the violation was unjustified.

Pay attention – Tort caused breach of contract is only useful when Breach of contract Caused financial damage (pecuniary damage, as opposed to damage such as Non-pecuniary damage such as Mental anguish).

Court rulings on the issue of breach of contract

Over the years, many rulings have been issued dealing with the tort of breach of contract. These rulings detail the conditions for the existence of the tort and in which cases the courts will accept claims based on this tort. Below are a few examples.

ת"א 36578-11-18 סיגל ואח' נ' גטניו (Judgment dated January 10, 2022):

עוולת גרם הפרת חוזה מעוגנת בסעיף 62 לפקודת הנזיקין (נוסח חדש). בס"ק 62(א) לפקודה, הוא הרלוונטי לענייננו, נקבע כדלקמן:

"מי שביודעין ובלי צידוק מספיק גורם לאדם שיפר חוזה מחייב כדין שבינו לבין אדם שלישי, הרי הוא עושה עוולה כלפי אותו אדם שלישי, אולם האדם השלישי לא יוכל להיפרע פיצויים בעד עוולה זו אלא אם סבל על ידי כך נזק ממון".

ב-ע"א 8191/16 דיאליט בע"מ נ' הרר (פורסם בנבו), פסק בית המשפט ביחס לרציונל ויסודות עוולת גרם הפרת חוזה, באומרו:

"While contract law protects the contractual right from being violated by the parties to the contract, tort law, through the tort of breach of contract, protects the contractual right from someone who is not a party to the contract. This protection reflects the legislator's desire to increase the reliability of the contractual right and its effectiveness... Without the existence of Valid contract Between the party alleging the breach and a third person, the tort will not arise. In addition, a condition without which the existence of a tort cannot constitute a breach of contract is violation By a party to the contract, i.e. an act or omission contrary to it …

The third requirement for the existence of a tort that caused a breach of contract (beyond the existence of a valid contract and its breach) is causingThat is, a causal connection must be proven between the action of a third party and the infringement…. This court expanded and determined that it is not necessary for the third party to entice or persuade the infringer to commit the infringement, in order for his action to be considered to cause the infringement…. The fourth requirement is His knowledge of the third party, both to the existence of a legally binding contract, and to the fact that as a result of his action a breach of the contract may occur….

Finally, it is required that the breach of contract was caused without justification. In general, the intervenor's justification can be based on a self-interest such as necessity, protection of a proprietary right, a contractual right or other public interest. The interest must be perceived by the court as superior, or at least equivalent in importance, to the interest in protecting the contractual relationship.... However, it is settled law that no strict rules should be established as to what will be considered justification, and that all the circumstances surrounding the breached contract and the background to its breach must be considered...

עוולת גרם הפרת חוזה מושתתת אפוא על קיומם של חמישה יסודות: חוזה, הפרה, גרימה, ידיעה, היעדר צידוק. נבחן להלן התקיימותם של יסודות אלה במקרה דנן" (Ibid., paragraphs 38-40 of the judgment) (emphasis in the original – R.H.).

תא (ת"א) 171041/02‏ עוה”ד הורוביץ דוד נ' נגבי ציונה (Judgment dated September 12, 2006) – This judgment deals with solicitation to breach a contract:

The cause of action for breach of contract is based on proving the following elements:

• The existence of a valid contract.
• Breach of contract by one of the parties to the contract.
• The breach was caused by someone who is not a party to the contract.
• The breaching party's knowledge of the existence of the contract and its breach.
• Lack of sufficient justification.

In light of the foregoing, the conclusion is drawn that the elements in sections A, B, and D above were met. The question remains for discussion as to whether it was Khakshuri who caused the defendants to breach the fee agreement and whether Khakshuri had sufficient justification to cause the breach.

פרופ' נילי כהן בספרה "דיני הנזיקין, העוולות השונות (בעריכת ג.טדסקי), "גרם הפרת חוזה" מונה מבחנים To determine the causal link between the violation and the solicitation of the violation (p. 115):

• The violator understands the meaning of the seducer's words.
• The words of the solicitor constitute part of the reasons for the action of the contract violator.
• The violator's intention to act was formed after the intervention of the inducer.
• The inducer intends that the violator will perform the action, as opposed to providing advice.

…

The additional and final element that must be determined in order to impose liability on Hakhshuri for the tort of causing a breach of contract is the element of justification. After we have seen that Hakhshuri knowingly caused a breach of the fee contract, we must examine whether his behavior was without justification.

"בעוד ששאר רכיבי העוולה מתייחסים ליסודות מוגדרים, ברורים וחיוביים, יסוד הצידוק מהווה מונח שסתום בלתי מוגדר ושלילי ('ובלי צידוק מספיק'), היקפו של המונח תלוי בשיקולי צדק ובאיזוני אינטרסים העומדים מאחוריו והוא מחייב את בית המשפט להפעיל שיקול דעת מורכב". (ספרה של נילי כהן, בעמ' 207).

בע"א 628/77 חסיד ואח' נגד קנוף ואח' ל"ד (2) 225,235, נקבע כי העדר זדון או רצון לגרום להפרת חוזה אינם מעלים ואינם מורידים לבחינת עוולת גרם הפרת חוזה וכי קיומם אינו מהווה צידוק. כן נקבע כי:

"שמירה על האינטרס העצמי או הגנה על אינטרס של אחרים אינה כשלעצמה בגדר צידוק מספיק… (עמ' 234 מול האות ז').

בבואנו לשקול זה אל מול זה את האינטרס הבא להגן על העקרון שחוזים יש לקיים אל מול העיקרון המגן על האינטרס הכלכלי של חכשורי לשלם לנתבעים סכום פיצוי שלא יכלול את שכרם של התובעים, דומה כי לא יכול להיות ספק שידו של האינטרס הראשון היא על עליונה (ראה: מאמרו של פרופ' דניאל פרידמן "מאזן האינטרסים בבחינת היסוד 'בלי צידוק מספיק' בעוולת גרם הפרת חוזה, עיוני משפט כרך ו', עמ' 625 ועמ' 626).

In the circumstances of this case, when my equipment acted improperly Good faith When he knew of the existence of the plaintiffs' right to their fees, it was obvious that the plaintiffs' right was superior to his right to pay the defendants reduced compensation based on a clear economic interest.

Common sense, the application of considerations of justice, and the balance of interests embodied in the plaintiffs' position versus the position of Khakshuri lead to the conclusion that the principle that contracts must be fulfilled should be preferred and that protecting Khakshuri's economic interest does not constitute justification within the meaning of the term in Section 62A of the Torts Ordinance.

Under these circumstances, I determine that the wrongful acts committed against the plaintiffs in tort caused a breach of contract and therefore he must compensate them for the damage they suffered as a result of the breach, namely the payment of their fees.

In conclusion

Caused breach of contract This is a legal claim relevant to a situation where a third party caused a breach of contract between two people or other entities. In such a situation, you can claim Damages for breach of contract.

The person injured by a breach of contract in such a situation will be entitled to receive compensation on this legal claim only if he has suffered financial damage. If he has not suffered financial damage, it is necessary to establish the The statement of claim On other legal grounds.

According to the provisions of the law, the tort of breach of contract involves five cumulative elements. It is sufficient for one of the elements to not be present for the claim to be based on this tort to not be possible.

This article presents a case law that can be used to understand the foundations of the tort.

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Breach of Contract