Exam (elaborations)
PVL3704 MCQ Memo Bundle
- Course
- Institution
PVL3704 MCQ memo bundle, from 2009 to 2021. Includes feedback and references where available. Repeated questions were excluded.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Teech
Reviews received
Content preview
PVL3704 MCQ Memo Bundle2021/ALL
Questions 1 to 3.
The following facts are relevant for questions 1 to 3.
A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is
owing. B has checked its records and has paid the amount in the bona fide belief that
the amount is owing in terms of their contract. Unbeknown to B, his bookkeeper, C
had already paid the amount a week earlier by way of an electronic funds transfer in
to the account of A. At the time of the second payment A's account was overdrawn in
the amount of R30,000 and was therefore in credit of R20,000 after the payment. A
has taken R15,000 out of his account to pay his employees their monthly wages. He
has also paid R10,000 for a luxury weekend after realising that his account was in
credit.
Question 1
Which statement best explains the nature of B’s claim against A?
1. B has a claim against A based on delict for a fraudulent misstatement.
2. B has contractual claim against A based on their contract.
3. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio causa data causa
non secuta.
4. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio indebiti.
5. B has no claim against A because he paid the amount voluntarily.
Answer: These questions deal with the condictio indebiti and its requirements. The
claim cannot be delictual because A's misrepresentation was innocently made. The
claim can also not be based on the contract, because there had already been payment
,which extinguished the duty to pay in terms of the contract. Evaluate further the
answers against the requirements of the condictio indebiti. Here the one party made
a bona fide payment that was not owing and under circumstances that were
excusable, partly because the mistake was induced by A's misrepresentation. See
further Study Guide 1 par 3.4, page 35ff.
Question 2
Which statement regarding the requirements for an enrichment action is
correct?
1. A has been enriched at the expense of B.
2. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment.
3. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B.
4. A's enrichment is unlawful because he made a demand for payment at a time
that it was not due.
5. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank.
Answer: A's enrichment took place at the expense of B because B was the person
who in law is regarded as the one who made the payment, even if C physically made
the payment. At the time of the payment, the duty to pay had already been
extinguished – the payment therefore cannot be in terms of the agreement, even if B
thought so. The enrichment is not unlawful because A's conduct was not delictual in
nature. The bank made payment in terms of its agreement with B and is therefore
entitled to debit B's account. Accordingly, the bank was not impoverished.
Consider whether all the other requirements for enrichment liability and the condictio
indebiti have been complied with. See further Study Guide 1 par 3.4, page 35ff.
Question 3
Which statement best explains the calculation of the enrichment claim?
1. B can claim an amount of R50,000 from A with an enrichment action.
2. B can only claim R20,000 from A because his account was overdrawn and the
bank received the benefit of the other R30,000.
3. B can claim nothing as A has not been unjustifiably enriched at his expense.
, 4. B can claim only R25,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been
spent on the wages and A's holiday.
5. B can claim only R40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been
lost on the luxury holiday.
Answer: A was initially enriched by an amount of R 50,000 on receipt of the money.
The fact that his overdraft was extinguished does not diminish his enrichment as his
debts have decreased by R 20,000. The payment of the wages also does not cause
his enrichment to diminish as those are expenses he would have had in any event.
The cost of the luxury holiday, however, does constitute an extinction of his
enrichment, as he would probably not have made these expenses if his account had
not been in credit. There is no indication on the facts provided that A should have
realised that he was enriched. See further Study Guide 1 par 2.3, page 28ff and par
3.4, page 37ff.
Question 4
In order to be successful with a claim based on the condictio indebiti, the
plaintiff must prove the following fact(s) or requirement(s):
1. That the impoverished party made a payment that was not due.
2. That the enrichment was unlawful.
3. That the mistake of the impoverished party was excusable.
4. 1 and 3 are correct.
5. 1 and 2 and 3 are correct
Answer: Have another look at the requirements for the condictio indebiti. Unlawfulness
is not a requirement. For the condictio indebiti it is required that the impoverished party
must have made a payment that was not owing as a result of an excusable mistake.
See further Study Guide 1 par 3.4, page 35ff.
Question 5
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
1. Where a bank has made payment in terms of a countermanded cheque.
2. Where a party knowingly makes a payment that is not due, but under duress
and protest.
, 3. Where a contract is rescinded due to a breach of contract.
4. Where a party has made an undue payment in terms of an illegal contract.
5. Where a party has made payment which is due but where the cause for the
payment later falls away.
Answer: In the case of countermanded cheques the appropriate action is the condictio
sine causa specialis. Where a contract is terminated due to breach, the action ground
is contractual and not in enrichment. Where one is dealing with illegal contracts, the
appropriate action is the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. In instance number
5 the correct action is the condictio sine causa. Payments under duress are specifically
dealt with under the conditio indebiti. See further Study Guide 1 par 4.6, page 50ff.
Question 6-7
The following facts are relevant for Question 6 and 7.
X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 on the
property it is renting from Z in Pretoria. It can be shown that the value of the property
has increased by R20,000 due to the improvement. X has disappeared before paying
Y for the work done. Y now wants to lodge a claim against Z, the owner of the property.
Question 6
Which statement best explains the ground on which and the amount that Y can
claim?
1. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000.
2. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R20,000.
3. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
4. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000.
5. Y has an enrichment claim against X for R 20,000.
Answer: This case deals with indirect enrichment. Have another look at the decisions
in Gouws v Jester Pools and Buzzard Electrical. In the Gouws case it was decided
that Y only had a contractual claim against the lessee, X and no enrichment action
against the owner, Z. Note also that Gouws would constitute a binding precedent in
Pretoria. In the Buzzard Electrical case this issue was left undecided by the Appellate
Division. See further Study Guide 1 par 2.2.3, page 21ff.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Teech. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $8.85. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
79035 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now