PVL3704 - Enrichment Liability And Estoppel (PVL3704)
Institution
University Of South Africa
PVL3704 EXAM
PREP 2022 –
Multiple Choice
Questions
(Answered) This is an all-inclusive guide to PVL3704 - Enrichment Liability And Estoppel
Which one of the following statements cannot be regarded as a general requirement for
enrichment liability?
1. The plaintiff must have been impoverish...
(d) Make a definite conclusion on the question asked
B has an enrichment claim against A amounting to R40, 000 only as the rest of the enrichment
amount has been lost on the luxury holiday. (1) See Study Guide 1, par. 2.2.1.
[max 10]
1.2 ANSWERS TO ASSIGNMENT 2
The correct answer to each of the questions below is the one blocked. Brief explanations are given
as to why each choice is right or wrong. Revert back to that part of the Study Guide if you still do
not understand why a certain choice is right and the others wrong.
Choose the most correct option in every instance. If there is more than one correct
option, choose the appropriate combined option.
Question 1
Which one of the following statements cannot be regarded as a general requirement for
enrichment liability?
1. The plaintiff must have been impoverished.
2. The enrichment must have taken place without a justifiable cause.
3. The enrichment must have taken place unlawfully.
4. The defendant must have been enriched.
5. The plaintiff is only entitled to the lesser of his impoverishment and the enrichment of the
defendant.
Feedback: There is no general requirement of unlawfulness when dealing with unjustified
enrichment law, although it may be relevant in the case of the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam
causam. Make sure that you understand the difference between unlawfulness and the requirement
that the enrichment must have taken place unjustifiably, ie without a valid underlying cause.
See your Study guide pp 16, 25 ff. (1)
Question 2
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.
Feedback: See the discussion of the requirements for the condictio indebiti on pp 36 as well as
the answer to the previous question. (1)
, lOMoARcPSD|5971764
Question 3
A has paid B an amount of R 40,000 by cheque. Before B could present the cheque to his bank,
A countermanded the cheque because B had delivered defective goods to him. X, a clerk at A’s
bank failed to notice the countermand notice and payment of the amount was made to B.
Indicate which statement best explains the nature of the possible claims by A or the
bank:
1. B has been enriched at the expense of the bank, because the bank had no mandate to
make a payment from A’s account.
2. B has been enriched at the expense of A, from whose account the payment was made.
3. A has an enrichment claim against B for the full amount of R 40,000.
4. A has an enrichment claim against B for a reduced amount.
5. 2 and 4 are both correct.
Feedback: If the bank makes a payment on a countermanded cheque, the bank has no
mandate from its client to make the payment from the client’s account. The bank has an obligation
to reverse the payment under these circumstances. The bank does have a possible enrichment
claim against the payee in so far as the payee has been enriched. Where, however, the payment
is made to extinguish a debt, there is no enrichment and consequently no action. See your Study
guide pp 49; 71 ff. (1)
Question 4
E is an employee of M. E is paid a monthly salary of R 20,000. On 15 June M summarily dismissed
E because of theft of company assets. The dismissal was lawful in terms of the employment
contract and employment law.
Indicate which statement best explains the possible claim that E might have against his
employer:
1. E has no claim for any part of his salary.
2. E has a contractual claim for the full amount of his salary for June.
3. E has a pro rata claim for half of his salary of June based on the principle of unjustified
enrichment.
4. E has a contractual claim for a pro rata part of his salary for June.
5. E has a claim for the full amount of his salary for June based on the principle of unjustified
enrichment.
6
, lOMoARcPSD|5971764
Feedback: Although the approach to award an enrichment claim under these circumstances
has been criticized, the leading case of Spencer v Gostelow is authority that the employee has an
enrichment claim in these circumstances. See your Study guide pp 123-124. (1)
A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While travelling in the Northern
Cape, the vehicle breaks down. A contracts with C, a garage in Springbok, to repair the
vehicle at a cost of R12,000. After two days A leases another vehicle from X and completes
his trip. He departs for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B.
Question 5
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim against B and the authority on which
it is based?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that C has no claim against B because B had not been enriched.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that C has no claim against B because B has not been enriched at C's expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A).
4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A).
5. The decision in the Gouws case was overruled in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v
Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A).
Feedback: There are two approaches on the issue whether the garage has an enrichment
claim under these circumstances: In the Gouws case the court held that the owner of the property
was not enriched at the expense of the person making the improvements or attachments, because
that person has a contractual claim against the lessee. The decision in the Gouws case was
left open in the Buzzard Electrical decision. The Brooklyn House Furnishers decision does
not deal with this issue. See also the approach adopted in the Hubby’s Investments case.
See your Study guide pp 21 ff. (1)
Question 6
Which statement best explains whether C has a retention right or whether he can
exercise it?
1. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until such time as it has been
paid for its necessary expenses.
2. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until it has been paid the full
contract price.
3. In terms of the decision in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4
SA 19 (A) C has no retention right because it has no enrichment claim against B.
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 SOLUTIONS2024. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.20. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
