Other
Summary notes 2022
- Course
- LLB LAW (LPL4804)
- Institution
- University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Summary notes 2022
[Show more]
Content preview
UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENTIntroduction to Unjustified Enrichment
Private law – deals with the legal relationships between private
entities other than the State in its public law capacity
Law of Obligations – concerned with the relationship that exists
between the debtor and creditor (contract, delict and
unjustified enrichment)
Contract – obligations created by agreement
Delict – obligations arise by force of law, upon damage or
personal injury by the commission of an unlawful action
Enrichment – obligations arise in a number of different
situations that are neither related to contract or delict
Historical sources – Roman Law and Roman-Dutch Law,
developed by South African courts, also subject to principles
and influence of the Constitution, although of little influence;
most influence developed by SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal)
Enrichment: used to describe the situation that occurs
when one person’s estate is increased unjustifiably (but not
unjustly) at the expense of another
Unjustified: enrichment occurred without justification
for such, without any legal basis; therefore, enrichment did not
occur owing to a pre-existing contract or due to any delict
having been committed. As a result of increase, obligation is
,created in terms of which the person whose estate has been
enriched has a duty to restore that which was received to the
person at whose expense the increase occurred. Impoverished
person – corresponding right to claim that the increase be
restored to him or herself.
A concluded a contract with B for the sale of a stud bull, Spartacus, for R100 000. B paid a
deposit of R10 000 at the time of the signing of the contract. However, unbeknown to both A
and B, Spartacus had died on the day before the conclusion of the contract. Can B reclaim
the deposit paid?
Did you consider the fact that the contract was void owing to its wording? If no contract exists
between the parties, there is no underlying reason, or causa, for the payment of the deposit.
B has been impoverished by the payment of the deposit, and A has been enriched by it. As
the issue pertains to an amount of money that has been paid, B may reclaim the full amount,
unless A can prove that the enrichment has been diminished, or extinguished. A’s enrichment
has been caused by the direct transfer of the money from B, and it has, therefore, occurred
at B’s expense. B should, therefore, be able to claim back the full amount transferred. Transfer
is sine causa.
C concluded a contract with D, in terms of which D was to paint the exterior of C’s house for
R20 000 while C was on holiday. As a result of a mix-up in addresses, D painted the house
belonging to E, who was also on holiday during the period. E’s house also seemed to require a
fresh coat of paint. Can D claim anything in the above regard from either C or E?
This scenario does not deal with a case of indirect enrichment. The painter mistakenly painted
the wrong house. Transfer was sine causa. Did you consider the existence of the contractual
relationships in the given instance, and the relevance thereof in respect of the potential claim?
Was D impoverished in this instance? If so, at whose expense did the impoverishment take
place?
Although a contract exists between C and D, no contract exists between D and E.
Although D thought he was performing his contract with C, because he painted the wrong
house, he did not fulfil his contractual obligations towards C. No contract existed between D
and E, and, consequently, D has no contractual claim against E. D has clearly been
impoverished by the expenditure of his time, labour and materials, but it is uncertain whether
E has, in fact, been enriched.
Did you consider that the house involved might not have risen in value as a result of the
painting, in which case E was not enriched? Did you also consider that perhaps E saved some
expenses if she was going to have her house painted anyway?
,F is renting a farm from G. F has concluded an agreement with H to repair the fences on the
farm at a cost of R40 000. H has carried out the repairs. In the meantime, F has absconded and
is nowhere to be found. Can H claim anything from G?
This is clearly a case of indirect enrichment. Consider the facts against the principles discussed
in the case law and articles on indirect enrichment, and come to an appropriate conclusion,
stating your own viewpoint on the issue.
Pay particular attention to the decisions made in the Gouws, Buzzard Electrical and McCarthy
cases. Note, also, the differences in the opinions expressed by the various writers: De Vos;
Eiselen and Pienaar; Van der Walt; Scholtens and Van Zyl.
The propositions presented in this scenario are quite similar to those that were presented in the
Gouws case. In your answer, you have to consider the approach taken in the various decided
cases, namely in Gouws, Buzzard Electrical and Hubby’s Investments. However, you have also
to consider the viewpoints of the different writers concerned before formulating a conclusion
of your own. Transfer was sine causa.
I has concluded an agreement with J for the sale of her second-hand car, at a price of R50
000. The market value of the car is only R30 000. Can J claim the difference from I?
Transfer was not sine causa. Did you consider whether there was a valid contract between
the parties concerned?
K has stolen L’s laptop computer from his office and has sold it to M for R2 000. Can L claim
anything from either K or M? What would the basis of the claim be if such were to be the case?
Is this a claim under enrichment law, a claim in delict, or a claim based on property law? Does
L have any rights or claims in property law, such as the actio rei vindicatio, that he or she should
employ rather than an enrichment claim? In scenario 5, no transfer of ownership takes place,
because the goods involved were stolen. The use of the actio rei vindicatio, or of a delictual
claim, would, therefore, be more appropriate in such an instance.
Requirements for the Use of an Enrichment Action:
1) The defendant must be enriched
2) The plaintiff must be impoverished
3) The defendant’s enrichment must have been at the expense of the plaintiff
4) The enrichment must have been sine causa (unjustified)
THE DEFENDANT MUST BE ENRICHED:
Requirements for Enrichment Liability:
Enrichment must take the form of:
1) An increase in the defendant’s assets that would not have occurred had the
, enriching fact not taken place;
2) A non-decrease in his or her assets, where a decrease would have taken
place,
but for the enriching fact;
3) A decrease in the number of liabilities that would not have taken place; or
4) A non-increase in the liabilities that would have taken place. The enrichment
must still exist in the patrimony of the enriched party at the time of lodging of
the claim. The enrichment may consist either of the thing or the value received.
THE PLAINTIFF MUST BE IMPOVERISHED:
Quantum of the plaintiff’s claim is the amount by which he has
been impoverished; amount by which defendant has been
enriched; whichever is the lessor amount.
Impoverishment may be constituted by:
a) A decrease
b) An increase
c) A non-increase in assets
d) A non-decrease in liabilities
A and B enter into a lease of land, with A as the lessor and B as the lessee. Although the
agreement is void for some reason, B remains in possession of the land for three years. She
constructs certain buildings, costing her R180 000, on the land and they enhance the value of
the land by R160 000.
When A evicts her from the land, B claims compensation for the improvements that she made
to the land. The claim by B is, of course, based on enrichment. At first glance, it would appear
that A has been enriched by R160 000 and B impoverished by R180 000, so that B should
succeed in an action for R160 000.
Related to the enriching fact, however, are various side-effects. In the first place, A lost
possession of her land for three years. If the value of her possessory interest for three years was
R130 000, this detrimental side-effect reduces A’s actual enrichment to R30 000. Secondly, B
had possession of the land for three years, and, for that period of time, had the use and
enjoyment of the land. If the value of such use and enjoyment was R120 000, this is a favourable
side-effect that reduces B’s impoverishment to R60 000. B should, therefore, succeed in an
action for R30 000.
Fully developed enrichment action must take into account all
favourable and detrimental side-effects of the enriching fact.
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 ctutor. 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)
60434 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now