Exam (elaborations)
PVL3704 Exam 2022
- Institution
- University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Exam of 116 pages for the course PVL3704 - Enrichment Liability And Estoppel at Unisa (PVL3704 Exam 2022)
[Show more]
Content preview
PVL3704 EXAM1.2 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)
,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
,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.
, 4. An enrichment retention right is a personal right and can therefore be
exercised only against the creditor.
5. C has no retention right under these circumstances.
Feedback: The garage cannot exercise a debtor-creditor lien against the owner as there is no
contractual relationship between them. The garage may have an enrichment lien for necessary
expenses against the owner in terms of the decision in the Brooklyn House Furnisher’s case.
Although one may argue that C has no retention right at all, Answer 1 is in line with the law as it
stands. See your Study guide p110 ff. (1)
Question 7
A has sold uncut diamonds to B for an amount of R100,000 in contravention of statutory
law. B has paid the amount but before the diamonds could be delivered, it was
confiscated by the police during a raid of A's house. Which statement best explains the
nature of the claim against A?
1. In circumstances like these a court may exercise an equitable judicial
discretion to relax the par delictum rule, depending on the relative turpitude of
the parties' conduct.
2. B has a claim for damages against A due to a breach of contract.
3. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam
because it is unfair that he should lose his money and get nothing.
4. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio sine causa specialis because
there is no other enrichment action at his disposal.
5. B has a claim for damages against A based on delict.
Feedback: The agreement between the parties is void due to illegality. The appropriate
enrichment claim to be applied in these circumstances therefore is the condictio ob turpem
vel iniustam causam. Answers 2, 4 and 5 therefore are incorrect. Although Answer 3 correctly
identifies the enrichment action, the reason provided for the liability is clearly wrong. Unjustified
enrichment liability is not determined on the basis of unfairness. Answer 1 correctly describes
the rule that is applicable here. A party’s claim under this action is generally excluded where it
acted with moral turpitude, but the court has an equitable discretion to relax this rule. (1)
Question 8
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis be
used?
1. As a general enrichment action.
2. Where property is transferred on the grounds of a valid cause which later falls
away.
3. Where a contract is terminated due to a resolutive condition.
4. Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement.
5. Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error.
8
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 EFT, 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 this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller UNISA2022. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R50,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67866 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now