PVL 3704 – Enrichment Liability & Estoppel
Oct/Nov 2020 – Exam MCQ Questions
50 Questions (2 x 50 = 100 marks)
Notes:
Working through these questions can help to prepare for examinations.
These are Questions only, without answers.
Random pool of questions, this is one question paper, but not all possible questions.
Some spelling and grammar errors are included, as they occurred in the paper.
Online exams no longer share past papers, this is similar to a past paper.
Some questions repeat, as they did in the exam.
,Question 1 of 50
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, they
were confiscated by the police during a raid of A's house.
Which statement best explains the nature of the claim against A?
A. 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.
B. 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.
C. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio sine causa specialis because
there is no other enrichment action at his disposal.
D. B has a claim for damages against A due to a breach of contract.
E. B has a claim for damages against A based on delict.
Question 2 of 50
E is renting offices from F. After two years of occupancy, E refurbishes the offices,
expending the following amounts: R140 000,00 on repartitioning the offices to address
the specific needs of E’s business, which is unlike any other; R120 000,00 on
upgrading of the bathrooms; R125 000,00 on repairing the roof that was leaking; and
R135 000,00 on the installation of new air-conditioning units because the old units did
not function properly. The lease contract did not address the issue of improvements
to the leased premises. Shortly after the renovations F terminated the lease with three
months’ notice, as she was entitled to do under the existing contract.
Indicate which statement best explains which enrichment action, if any, is available to
E against F.
A. E has a claim against F based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
B. E has a claim against F based on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis.
C. E has a claim against F based on the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria.
D. 3 and 4.
E. E has a claim against F based on the condictio indebiti.
Question 3 of 50
G, a zoo keeper by profession, has noticed that his neighbour H’s bull is seriously ill.
The neighbour is currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be contacted. G, out of
his love for animals and with hope that H will give him the bull as a token of
appreciation, has called a veterinary doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his
bills including medication. The total costs were R12 000. Despite the treatment the bull
, has died. H has warned G not to do anything on his farm under any circumstances if
he is away.
H approaches you for advice as to whether G has any ground to claim the medical
costs from him as he is the owner of the bull. Choose the most correct advice.
A. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary
expenses.
B. G will have no claim in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria
because he acted against the express prohibition of H.
C. G will still have a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum
contraria because the bull belonged to H.
D. G will have no claim because the bull has died.
E. G has no claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum contraria for R12
000 because G did not act in the interest of H.
Question 4 of 50
The element of enrichment liability which the court in B & H Engineering v First
National Bank of SA Ltd 1995 (2) SA 279 (A) found to be lacking when a bank
inadvertently paid out the value of a countermanded cheque was absent because -
A. the bank was to blame for its own mistake.
B. there was no causal connection between the payment of the money by the
bank and the receipt thereof by the beneficiary.
C. there was breach of contract between the parties.
D. there is no enrichment action that can be applied in such circumstances.
E. an underlying debt had been extinguished.
Question 5 of 50
A concluded a sale with B for the purchase of 100 000,00 litres of crude oil in transit
on the ship Miss Fortuna for R20 000 000,00. A paid a deposit of R1 000 000,00. A
had to make use of an overdraft facility to pay the deposit on which it paid interest at
the rate of 14% per year. A and B were both unaware of the fact that the ship had
already sunk and lost its full cargo at the time of the conclusion of the contract. B had
an overdraft of R500 000,00 with its bank C which was subject to the payment of
interest at 12% per year. C bank set-off R500 000,00 of the deposit against B’s
overdraft, extinguishing the overdraft amount completely. The rest of the money was
left in B’s current account where it earned interest at a rate of 7.5% per year.
Which statement best explains the enrichment action that underlies the claim that A
may have against B.
