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 1 - 2024 $2.80
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. University Of South Africa (Unisa)
  4.  
  5. Enrichment Liability and Estoppel (PVL3704)

Other

PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1 - 2024
 6 purchases
  • Course
  • Enrichment Liability and Estoppel (PVL3704)
  • Institution
  • University Of South Africa (Unisa)
  • Book
  • Unjustified Enrichment

PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1 - 2024 DUE DATE: 12 MARCH 2024 QUESTION 1. Discuss the general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the expense of the plaintiff. Refer in your answer to case law. QUESTION 2. A has sold uncut diamonds to B for an amount of R10 0...

[Show more]

Preview 3 out of 11  pages

Document information

  • February 24, 2024
  • 11
  • 2023/2024
  • Other
  • Unknown

Subjects

  • pvl3704 assignment 1 semester 1 2024

Connected book

book image

Book Title:

Author(s):

  • Edition:
  • ISBN:
  • Edition:

Written for

  • University of South Africa (Unisa)
  • Enrichment Liability and Estoppel (PVL3704)
All documents for this subject (42)

Seller

avatar-seller
Masters

Reviews received

Content preview

PVL3704
ASSIGNMENT 1
22
SEMESTER - 01
DUE DATE: 12 MARCH



2024


"Elevate Your Excellence: Where Distinction Meets Assurance in Every Assignment!"

,PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1 – 2024
DUE DATE: 12 MARCH 2024




1

, QUESTION 1
Discuss the general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the
expense of the plaintiff. Refer in your answer to case law. (15)

In enrichment law, a crucial requirement for holding a defendant liable is that their
enrichment must have occurred "at the expense of" the plaintiff. This means there must be a
causal link between the plaintiff's loss (impoverishment) and the defendant's gain
(enrichment). This is expressed by saying that the defendant’s enrichment must be ‘at the
expense of the plaintiff’. Normally this requirement causes little difficulty since in most
cases the causal link is obvious.

The Causal Link Requirement:
The cornerstone of enrichment law is the establishment of a causal link between the
defendant's enrichment and the plaintiff's impoverishment. As Van der Walt explains, "The
at-the-expense-of requirement is satisfied once assets have been directly transferred from
A's estate to that of C" (Van der Walt, 1966) 1. This principle underscores that mere
enrichment of the defendant is insufficient; there must be a demonstrable connection
between the defendant's gain and the plaintiff's loss.

For example, if A pays B an amount of money that is not owing, A can claim it back with the
condictio indebiti, an enrichment action based on the causal link between A’s
impoverishment and B’s enrichment. In another example, if A mistakenly pays B twice for
the same invoice, A can recover the second payment from B.

The Indirect Enrichment Problem:
Challenges have arisen in what DH Van Zyl identifies as instances of "indirect enrichment."
These scenarios occur when two parties, A and B, engage in a contract where A provides
services to B, but the ultimate benefit of these services accrues to a third party, C. For
instance, if A, acting as a subcontractor, agrees with B to supply roofing materials for a house
that B is constructing for C, and B fulfills the payment to A, then C gains enrichment at B's
cost, not A's.

De Vos argues that B's failure to fulfill its obligations to A does not alter the legal relationship
between A and C. In the aforementioned example, De Vos maintains that C's enrichment
occurs at B's expense, not A's.
This perspective finds support in the case of Gouws v Jester Pools 2. In this case, A
constructed a swimming pool for B under the impression that the land belonged to B,
though it was actually owned by C. Subsequently, when B vanished without settling the
payment for the pool, A pursued an enrichment claim against C. However, the court ruled
that C had been enriched at B’s expense, disallowing A's claim against C.




1
Van der Walt (1966 THRHR 222)
2
Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 653 (T)


2

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 or Stuvia-credit 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 Masters. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $2.80. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

69252 documents were sold in the last 30 days

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

Start selling
$2.80  6x  sold
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added