PVL3704 Enrichment Liability And Estoppel MCQ EXAM PACK . Choose the most correct option in every instance.
(1) A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is
owing. B has checked its records and has paid the amount in the bona fide belief that
the amount is owing i...
,Choose the most correct option in every instance.
(1) A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is
owing. B has checked its records and has paid the amount in the bona fide belief that
the amount is owing in terms of their contract. Unbeknown to B, his bookkeeper, C
had already paid the amount a week earlier by way of an electronic funds transfer into
the account of A. At the time of the second payment A's account was overdrawn in
the amount of R30,000 and was therefore in credit of R20,000 after the payment. A has
taken R15,000 out of his account to pay his employees their monthly wages. He has
also paid R10,000 for a luxury weekend after realising that his account was in credit.
Which statement best explains the nature of the claim against A?
1. B has a claim against A based on delict for a fraudulent misstatement.
2. B has a contractual claim against A based on their contract.
3. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio causa data causa non
secuta.
√4. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio indebiti.
5. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis. (2)
(2) Assume the same facts as in question (1). Which statement regarding the
requirements for an enrichment action is correct?
√1. A has been enriched at the expense of B.
2. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment.
3. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B.
4. A's enrichment is unlawful because he made a demand for payment at a time that it was
not due.
5. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank. (2)
(3) Assume the same facts as in question (1). Which statement best explains the
calculation of the enrichment claim?
1. B can only claim R20,000 from A because his account was overdrawn and the bank
received the benefit of the other R30,000.
2. B can claim nothing as A has not been unjustifiably enriched at his expense.
3. B can claim only R25,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been spent on
the wages and A's holiday.
√4. B can claim only R40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been lost on
the luxury holiday.
5. B can claim only R35,000 because the rest of the enrichment has been lost on the wages
paid. (2)
(4) 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 2 are correct.
√5. 1 and 3 are correct. (2)
(5) In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
1. Where a bank has made payment in terms of a countermanded cheque.
√2. Where a party knowingly makes a payment that is not due, but under duress and protest.
3. Where a contract is rescinded due to a breach of contract.
4. Where a party has made an undue payment in terms of an illegal contract.
5. Where a party has made payment which is due but where the cause for the payment later
falls away. (2)
(6) X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 on
the property it is renting from Z. It can be shown that the value of the property has
increased by R20,000 due to the improvement. X has disappeared before paying Y for
the work done. Y now wants to lodge a claim against Z, the owner of the property.
Which statement best explains the ground on which and amount that Y can claim
(Read question (7) before you answer this question).
1. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000.
2. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R20,000.
√3. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
4. X has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000.
5. Y has an enrichment claim against X R 20,000. (2)
(7) Assume the same facts as in question (6). Which statement best explains the
authority for the answer to question 6?
√1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that Y has no claim against Z because Z had not been enriched at his expense.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that Y has a claim against Z because Z had been enriched at his 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 confirmed in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v
Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A). (2)
(8) G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is
currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a
veterinary doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the
medication.
, total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. Which statement best
explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
√3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G has a claim against H as the agent of H. (2)
(9) G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is
currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a
veterinary doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the
medication. The total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. G is a
meddlesome neighbour and H has previously warned him not to do anything on his
farm under any circumstances, but rather to call his brother K, if G should notice any
problem. G did not bother to call K. Which statement best explains the basis of G's
possible claim against H?
√1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been
wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail because
the bull died.
(10) Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of another's
property?
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of another
person.
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of another
person as if he is the owner thereof.
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another person
as if he is the owner thereof.
√4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another
person as if he is the owner thereof.
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another
person temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee. (2)
(11) Which statement best explains the legal position on the recognition of a general
enrichment action in South African law?
1. In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a
general enrichment action in South Africa without any qualifications.
2. In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a
general enrichment action in South Africa, but with certain qualifications.
3. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate
Division recognised the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa.
√4. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate
Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa but recognised
that courts can extend enrichment liability to circumstances where it is deemed necessary.
5. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate
Division recognised the existence of a subsidiary, general enrichment action in South Africa.
(2)
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 EXCELLENTNURSE. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R57,96. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
