PVL3704 - Enrichment Liability And Estoppel (PVL3704)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
QUESTION 1
Discuss the causality (at the expense of requirement) requirement of enrichment liability.
(10)
QUESTION 2
In McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [9] the court said: “We
now know from the hard print that there is a common-law basis for the ac...
PVL3704 - Enrichment Liability And Estoppel (PVL3704)
All documents for this subject (176)
3
reviews
By: nerengpapo • 1 year ago
By: LydiaKhosa • 2 year ago
By: STUDYASSIST037 • 2 year ago
Very good
Seller
Follow
StudyAssistant036
Reviews received
Content preview
MAY 2023
EXAM
ANSWERS
ENRICHMENT,
LIABILITY &
ESTOPPEL
PVL3704
,QUESTION 1
Discuss the causality (at the expense of requirement) requirement of
enrichment liability. (10)
In South African law, the enrichment liability is governed by the principle of
unjustified enrichment, which requires that enrichment of one party at the expense of
another must be remedied. The causality requirement of enrichment liability refers to
the requirement that there must be a causal link between the enrichment of the
defendant and the corresponding loss suffered by the plaintiff.
In order for a plaintiff to succeed in an enrichment claim, they must show that the
enrichment of the defendant was caused by the corresponding loss suffered by the
plaintiff. This means that the plaintiff must prove that there is a direct connection
between the enrichment of the defendant and the corresponding loss suffered by the
plaintiff.
The causality requirement is important because it ensures that the plaintiff is not able
to recover for a loss that was not directly caused by the defendant's enrichment. This
requirement also ensures that the defendant is not held liable for any losses that
were not caused by their enrichment.
Overall, the causality requirement of enrichment liability ensures that there is a fair
and just remedy for situations where one party has gained at the expense of another.
It ensures that plaintiffs are not able to recover for losses that were not directly
caused by the defendant's enrichment and that defendants are not held liable for
losses that were not caused by their enrichment.
QUESTION 2
In McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para
[9] the court said: “We now know from the hard print that there is a common-
law basis for the acceptance of a general enrichment action, at least one of a
subsidiary nature. In this respect the decision of the majority in Nortje’s case
, has been shown by the then largely dormant authority to be clearly wrong”.
Critically discuss this statement with reference to relevant case law. (10)
The statement made by the court in McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC
2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [9] is an important one in the development of the law of
unjustified enrichment in South Africa. The court's statement relates to the decision
in Nortje's case, which had previously been seen as the leading case on enrichment
claims.
In Nortje's case, the majority had held that there was no general enrichment action in
South African law. However, the court in McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance
Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [9] disagreed with this decision and held
that there was a common-law basis for the acceptance of a general enrichment
action.
The court's statement in McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3)
SA 482 (SCA) para [9] was a significant development in South African law, as it
established the foundation for a general enrichment action. This meant that plaintiffs
could bring an enrichment claim even if there was no existing legal relationship
between the parties.
The importance of the court's decision in McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance
Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [9] has been confirmed in subsequent case
law. For example, in the case of FirstRand Bank Ltd v The Master 2012 (4) SA 321
(SCA), the court referred to McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001
(3) SA 482 (SCA) para [9] and held that there was a general enrichment action in
South African law.
In conclusion, the statement made by the court in McCarthy Retail Ltd v
Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [9] was an important
development in South African law, as it established the basis for a general
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 StudyAssistant036. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.85. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
