Other
100% MARKS PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 OF S1 2024
- Course
- Institution
This is 100% mark script of Assignment No. 1 of Semester 1 of 2024 for PVL 3704 (Law of Unjustified Enrichment and Estoppel)
[Show more]
Seller
FollowiMAJOR
Content preview
100% PASS20/20
NAME : MOTLATSO RAMATSHEKGISA
STUDENT NO: 50061259
MODULE: PVL3704
ASSIGNMENT: NO. 1 of SEMESTER 1/2024
UNIQUE NUMBER: 146664
DATE: 12 MARCH 2024
, 1.1
NAME MOTLATSO RAMATSHEKGISA
STUDENT NO 50061259
MODULE PVL3704
ASSIGNMENT NO. 1 of SEMESTER 1/2024
UNIQUE NUMBER 146664
DATE 12 MARCH 2024
QUESTION 1
1. There must be a causal link between enrichment and impoverishment. However,
in our question it is expressed that the defendant must be at the expense of the
plaintiff. The issue arises in cases whereby there is indirect enrichment – for
example (I will employ the alphabets to demonstrate my example) where A render
performance to B but the benefits of the performance stem to the other person C.
De Vos was however of the view that the fact that B does not render performance
to A, cannot affect juridical position between A and C, and that C is enriched at B
expense and not A’s expense. In that case, A cannot bring an enrichment action
against C. His opinion was then approved by the Transvaal Provisional Division in
the case of Gouws v Jester where A and B had entered in to a contract were A had
built a swimming pool for B , and on land that he was under impression that It
belongs B which was ipso facto property of C. B had then disappeared without
having to effect his obligation in terms of the contract between himself and A. A
then brought an action against C, which was rejected, with the findings of Jansen,
that C has been enriched at B’s expense not A’s.1
The “at the expense of” was however necessitated by Vander walt, that the
requirement is exhausted once there was direct transfer of assets from A’s estate
to C-direct transfer pass directly from A to C and not from A to B and B to C. The
issue was dealt with in the case of Buzzard Electrical, where the court contrasted
two situations, the first is where (as it appears in the case of Gouws ) someone (A)
1
University of South Africa, Unjustified Enrichment Liability and Estoppel: Study Guide 1 PVL3704
(2018 University of South Africa Muckleneuk, Pretoria) 21 see also Gouws v Jester pools (pty) Ltd 1968
3 SA 653 (T).
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 iMAJOR. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.55. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75057 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now