Is the amendment the compensation?
Does the question arise whether the tenant is entitled to additional compensation beyond reimbursement of the cost of the repair or a reduction in the rent? Moreover, is the very fact that the landlord did not carry out the repair, a breach of contract, or is it that the tenant chose self-repair or a reduction in rent, are both the remedy, or is the compensation for breach of the landlord’s duty?
To answer these questions, we will refer to the purpose of compensation under tort law.
At this point, it is no different than in contract law.
The use of the expression compensation in the Torts Ordinance tells us that the remedy is not declaratory or punitive, but a remedy.
The purpose of the compensation is to restore to the injured party, as far as possible, his condition as it was on the eve of the incident.
The monetary compensation should put the tenant in control of the event.
Therefore, it is possible that the landlord will not be harmed financially at all by the tenant making a self-repair or a reduction in the rent.
This conclusion can also be reached from another direction.
Self-repair or reduction of rent are alternatives of the same monetary value.
And since the landlord must bear this payment, the debts of the parties to each other can be offset, and thus will not even be harmed financially.
The possibility of offsetting on the basis of section 25 of the Rent Law, cannot be conditioned on this provision.
The only financial harm is only from the fact that the tenant may choose an option that is more expensive for the landlord as we explained in the example above.