LPL4802 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE QUESTIONS & ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 (287381) - DUE 16 August 2024 ;100 % TRUSTED workings, explanations and solutions. For assistance call or W.h.a.t.s.a.p.p us on ...(.+.2.5.4.7.7.9.5.4.0.1.3.2)...........
Critically discuss the decision of Mdlekeza v Gallie 2021...
1(a) In Transnet Ltd v Sechaba Photoscan (Pty) Ltd (2005) (1) SA 299 SCA, the Court
expressed the view that: “it is now beyond question that damages in delict (and
contract) are assessed according to the comparative method “@ [15]
The statement refers to the current legal stance regarding the assessment of damages in
civil litigation. It states that damages should be evaluated based on a comparison of the
plaintiff's financial situation before and after the harmful event. This principle is based on
the belief that the damages awarded should be proportionate to the amount of loss
suffered by the plaintiff. The court has determined that damages in contract and delict
cases are determined using the comparative method, as established in the Transnet Ltd.
v. Sechaba Photoscan (Pty) Ltd. (2005) (1) SA 299 SCA decision.1 However, this
approach has recently been questioned in South African law of damages jurisprudence,
particularly considering the sum formula method and the concrete concept of damage.
The comparative method is essential to ensure that the compensation awarded is fair and
equitable and accurately reflects the plaintiff's actual loss.
It is widely acknowledged that one must apply a comparison strategy to evaluate damage.
In Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v. Byleveldt, the court upheld this idea and
declared that patrimonial damage is the difference between the aggrieved party's
patrimonial position before the wrongdoing and following it.2 A comparison of some sort
is necessary for a damages assessment.
The application of the law of damages necessitates an equitable and just approach that
is consistent with the principles of impartiality and fairness. In this regard, the comparative
method provides a flexible and bespoke framework for the quantification of damages.
This approach accommodates the concrete concept of damage, which underscores the
1
Transnet Ltd v Sechaba Photoscan (Pty) Ltd 2005 (1) SA 299 (SCA).
2
Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Byleveldt 1973 (2) SA 146 (A).
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 LIBRARYpro. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R47,91. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
