1. When touching upon the question of the nature of corporate personality most lawyers will at best make a link with some paragraphs from the introduction to their commercial law course. They will remember that during the nineteenth century fierce theoretical battles were fought on questions such as whether we should treat supra-individual and non-individual entities as “persons”, under what conditions we should recognize their personality and what should be the legal consequences of such recognition. But no matter how interesting this debate must have been, to revive it is tantamount to becoming a public menace. Already in 1953 H.L.A. Hart, certainly an authority on legal theory, declared that “the juristic controversy over the nature of corporate personality is dead”. In many respects this assessment is correct. Despite the numerous differences about the conditions of recognition, about the possible types of corporations and associations which are subject to corporate personality, about the solidity of the corporate veil, we can observe that nearly all legal systems in the world adopt the notion of corporate personality as such. We may assume the notion will become even more important in the former socialist world, as these countries try hard to reshape their economies along the lines of the market economies in the Western world.

Section 2 of the Contracts (Remedies for Breach of Contract) Law, 1970 defines a breach as “an act or omission contrary to the contract”. This general definition applies to any obligation in any contract, and to every form of its breach. Thus, a seller who has undertaken to deliver certain property at an agreed time and place is in breach of his obligation whether he delivers a different property than the agreed or a defective one, whether he makes the delivery after the agreed time or at a wrong place, and so forth. This abstraction of the notion of breach, and the application of similar rules to all kinds of breach (subject to some specific rules in specific Laws and in the Remedies Law itself), are prominent features of the law of contractual remedies and of contract law in general under Israeli legislation. This abstraction enables one to deal generally with subjects, that in other legal systems in various contexts are treated separately. The question discussed in this article refers to the degree of similarity required between the content of the contract and its actual performance. In other words, the question is whether a slight or trivial deviation from the contract's content is to be considered a breach.