100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
PVL3704 Assignment 1 Semester 2 2024 | Due 15 August 2024 £2.23
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. University Of South Africa (Unisa)
  4.  
  5. Undue Enrichment Liability and Estoppel (PVL3704)

Exam (elaborations)

PVL3704 Assignment 1 Semester 2 2024 | Due 15 August 2024
 0 purchase
  • Module
  • Undue Enrichment Liability and Estoppel (PVL3704)
  • Institution
  • University Of South Africa (Unisa)
  • Book
  • Defences in Unjust Enrichment

PVL3704 Assignment 1 Semester 2 2024 | Due 15 August 2024. All questions answered with references. Question 1 Discuss in general (without reference to a specific enrichment action) how the extent of enrichment liability (or the quantum of the enrichment claim) will be calculated. (10) Questio...

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 6  pages

Document information

  • July 24, 2024
  • 6
  • 2023/2024
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers

Subjects

  • pvl3704 assignment 1 semester 2 2024

Connected book

book image

Book Title:

Author(s):

  • Edition:
  • ISBN:
  • Edition:

Written for

  • University of South Africa (Unisa)
  • Undue Enrichment Liability and Estoppel (PVL3704)
All documents for this subject (2)

Seller

avatar-seller
Aimark94

Reviews received

Content preview

, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT


Please note that the author of this document will not responsibility for any plagiarizing you
commit.

 Question 1

1. Discuss in general (without reference to a specific enrichment action) how the extent of
enrichment liability (or the quantum of the enrichment claim) will be calculated.

The concept of enrichment liability, or the quantum of an enrichment claim, is rooted in the
principles of unjustified enrichment in legal theory. This doctrine ensures that one party does not
benefit at the expense of another without just cause. The calculation of the extent of enrichment
liability involves determining the amount by which the plaintiff has been impoverished and the
defendant has been enriched, with the lesser of these two amounts being the quantum of the claim.

The fundamental principle guiding the calculation of enrichment liability is that the plaintiff is
entitled to recover either the amount by which they have been impoverished or the amount by which
the defendant has been enriched, whichever is lesser. This ensures a fair balance, preventing unjust
enrichment while not penalizing the defendant beyond the extent of their actual benefit. The
determination of this amount is typically fixed at the time of the institution of the action (litis
contestatio).

However, several exceptions exist to this general rule. These exceptions recognize situations where
the enrichment liability might be fixed at an earlier date than the lodging of the claim. Such
circumstances include cases where the defendant becomes aware of their unjust enrichment, should
have realized the benefit might later constitute unjust enrichment, falls into default (mora debitoris),
or acts in bad faith (mala fide).

In practice, if a defendant's enrichment is diminished or lost before the action is instituted, their
liability is correspondingly reduced or extinguished. This principle was illustrated in cases like King
v Cohen and Govender v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd, where the courts held that the
defendant's liability would decrease if the enrichment was no longer present at the time of the
lawsuit.

To claim non-enrichment, the defendant bears the burden of proof. They must demonstrate that the
diminution or loss of enrichment occurred through no fault of their own. This defense acknowledges
that liability should be equitable and just, not extending beyond the actual benefit derived from the
enrichment.

Furthermore, the law also accounts for specific circumstances such as minors enriched through
unauthorized contracts, where liability is fixed at the time of litis contestatio. This special
consideration underscores the nuanced approach of the law to various scenarios to ensure fairness
and justice.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

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

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

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 Aimark94. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £2.23. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

69052 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now

Start selling
£2.23
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added