PVL3704 - Enrichment Liability And Estoppel (PVL3704)
Instelling
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
QUESTION 1
Discuss the causality (at the expense of requirement) requirement of enrichment liability.
(10)
QUESTION 2
In McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [9] the court said: “We
now know from the hard print that there is a common-law basis for the ac...
PVL3704 - Enrichment Liability And Estoppel (PVL3704)
Alle documenten voor dit vak (176)
3
beoordelingen
Door: nerengpapo • 1 jaar geleden
Door: LydiaKhosa • 2 jaar geleden
Door: STUDYASSIST037 • 2 jaar geleden
Very good
Verkoper
Volgen
StudyAssistant036
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
MAY 2023
EXAM
ANSWERS
ENRICHMENT,
LIABILITY &
ESTOPPEL
PVL3704
,QUESTION 1
Discuss the causality (at the expense of requirement) requirement of
enrichment liability. (10)
In South African law, the enrichment liability is governed by the principle of
unjustified enrichment, which requires that enrichment of one party at the expense of
another must be remedied. The causality requirement of enrichment liability refers to
the requirement that there must be a causal link between the enrichment of the
defendant and the corresponding loss suffered by the plaintiff.
In order for a plaintiff to succeed in an enrichment claim, they must show that the
enrichment of the defendant was caused by the corresponding loss suffered by the
plaintiff. This means that the plaintiff must prove that there is a direct connection
between the enrichment of the defendant and the corresponding loss suffered by the
plaintiff.
The causality requirement is important because it ensures that the plaintiff is not able
to recover for a loss that was not directly caused by the defendant's enrichment. This
requirement also ensures that the defendant is not held liable for any losses that
were not caused by their enrichment.
Overall, the causality requirement of enrichment liability ensures that there is a fair
and just remedy for situations where one party has gained at the expense of another.
It ensures that plaintiffs are not able to recover for losses that were not directly
caused by the defendant's enrichment and that defendants are not held liable for
losses that were not caused by their enrichment.
QUESTION 2
In McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para
[9] the court said: “We now know from the hard print that there is a common-
law basis for the acceptance of a general enrichment action, at least one of a
subsidiary nature. In this respect the decision of the majority in Nortje’s case
, has been shown by the then largely dormant authority to be clearly wrong”.
Critically discuss this statement with reference to relevant case law. (10)
The statement made by the court in McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC
2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [9] is an important one in the development of the law of
unjustified enrichment in South Africa. The court's statement relates to the decision
in Nortje's case, which had previously been seen as the leading case on enrichment
claims.
In Nortje's case, the majority had held that there was no general enrichment action in
South African law. However, the court in McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance
Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [9] disagreed with this decision and held
that there was a common-law basis for the acceptance of a general enrichment
action.
The court's statement in McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3)
SA 482 (SCA) para [9] was a significant development in South African law, as it
established the foundation for a general enrichment action. This meant that plaintiffs
could bring an enrichment claim even if there was no existing legal relationship
between the parties.
The importance of the court's decision in McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance
Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [9] has been confirmed in subsequent case
law. For example, in the case of FirstRand Bank Ltd v The Master 2012 (4) SA 321
(SCA), the court referred to McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001
(3) SA 482 (SCA) para [9] and held that there was a general enrichment action in
South African law.
In conclusion, the statement made by the court in McCarthy Retail Ltd v
Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [9] was an important
development in South African law, as it established the basis for a general
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper StudyAssistant036. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
