100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
PVL3703 Assignment 3 Semester 1 2023 R55,91   Add to cart

Exam (elaborations)

PVL3703 Assignment 3 Semester 1 2023

 11 views  0 purchase

PVL3703 Assignment 3 (QUIZ) Semester 1 2023 () 100% TRUSTED working Question 1 Which is the odd one out? a. _Weber v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk_ 1983 1 SA 381 (A). b. _Van Wyk v Lewis_ 1924 AD 438. c. _Eskom Holdings Ltd v Hendricks_ 2005 5 SA 503 (SCA). d. _Roxa v Mtshayi_ 1975 3 SA 761 (...

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 13  pages

  • April 28, 2023
  • 13
  • 2022/2023
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers
All documents for this subject (33)
avatar-seller
inotes
4/28/2023
PVL3703
Assignment
3 (QUIZ)
Semester 1
2023

lenovo
[COMPANY NAME]

, PVL3703 Assignment 3 (QUIZ) Semester 1 2023

Question 1
Which is the odd one out?
The odd one out is (b) Van Wyk v Lewis 1924 AD 438 as it is a case from the
Appellate Division and the others are cases from the Supreme Court of Appeal or
the Appellate Division of the High Court.
a. _Weber v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk_ 1983 1 SA 381 (A).
b. _Van Wyk v Lewis_ 1924 AD 438.
c. _Eskom Holdings Ltd v Hendricks_ 2005 5 SA 503 (SCA).
d. _Roxa v Mtshayi_ 1975 3 SA 761 (A).
Question 2
Zama plays tennis in his back yard. He foresees the possibility of his ball
breaking a window in his neighbour’s house but decides that it will not
happen. If the ball indeed breaks thewindow, Zama had the following form of
fault in respect of the damage:
The correct answer is (c) Dolus indeterminatus. This is a form of fault where the
person foresees the possibility of the harmful consequences of their actions but is
uncertain whether they will occur or not. In this case, Zama foresaw the possibility
of the ball breaking the window but was uncertain whether it would happen or not.
a. Contributory negligence.
b. _Luxuria_.
c. _Dolus indeterminatus_.
d. _Dolus determinatus_.
Question 3
Not yetanswered Marked out of 2 Which one of the following cases is most
frequently cited for its clear formulation of the test for negligence?
The most frequently cited case for its clear formulation of the test for negligence is
(a) Kruger v Coetzee 1966 2 SA 428 (A). This case established the three-part test

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 EFT, 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 this summary from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller inotes. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy this summary for R55,91. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

64438 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now

Start selling
R55,91
  • (0)
  Buy now