,
, CONFIDENTIAL
Page 8 of 9
PVL3704
MAY/JUNE
QUESTION 1
Discuss the ‘at the expense of requirement’ of enrichment liability. Refer to relevant case law in your
discussion. (15)
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. (25)
QUESTION 3
C has paid D R30 000 by cheque. A day later, C instructs her bank, E, to countermand (stop) the cheque.
Despite the countermand, E bank pays out the cheque to D when he presents the cheque and debits
C’s account. C wants the debit reversed. Advise C and E about the validity of the debit and whether
either of them has an enrichment claim against D. Refer to relevant case law. (10)
QUESTION 4
Write a critical discussion on negative misrepresentation (misrepresentation by omission) within the
context of estoppel. Refer to relevant case law. (15)
QUESTION 5
Fully discuss the requirement that reliance on estoppel must be permissible in law. Refer to examples
and relevant case law where applicable. (10)
, Pvl3704 May/June Examination 2025
Question 01
Proving a clear connection between one party's loss and another's gain is the essential
requirement in South African unjustified enrichment law, which safeguards against
claims based on indirect benefits while upholding the law's commitment to fairness
and justice.
South African law requires understanding the direct loss-gain connection as one of
four key elements for proving unjust enrichment:
The defendant must have been given a benefit
The plaintiff must have endured a loss.
It is necessary for these events to be directly connected (showing that the gain was
incurred at the plaintiff's expense).
This transfer must not have a valid legal basis.
In the case of Prasa v Community property company Ltd SCA the court decided that
simply saying the four basic elements (including the 'at the expense of' requirement)
does not constitute a valid enrichment cause of action, and the Supreme Court of
Appeal rejected the enrichment argument. This case confirms that South African
legislation does not acknowledge a general enrichment claim solely on the four
requirements.
In the case of McCarthy Retail Ltd vs Shortdistance Carriers CC, the plaintiff
demanded payment for services made even though they did not have a formal
contract. According to the Supreme Court of Appeal, claims for unfair enrichment must
be classified as condictio indebiti if there is no direct contract involved. Their
observation was that proving causation can be challenging, which emphasises the
significance of having clear strategy for enrichment claims.
, CONFIDENTIAL
Page 8 of 9
PVL3704
MAY/JUNE
QUESTION 1
Discuss the ‘at the expense of requirement’ of enrichment liability. Refer to relevant case law in your
discussion. (15)
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. (25)
QUESTION 3
C has paid D R30 000 by cheque. A day later, C instructs her bank, E, to countermand (stop) the cheque.
Despite the countermand, E bank pays out the cheque to D when he presents the cheque and debits
C’s account. C wants the debit reversed. Advise C and E about the validity of the debit and whether
either of them has an enrichment claim against D. Refer to relevant case law. (10)
QUESTION 4
Write a critical discussion on negative misrepresentation (misrepresentation by omission) within the
context of estoppel. Refer to relevant case law. (15)
QUESTION 5
Fully discuss the requirement that reliance on estoppel must be permissible in law. Refer to examples
and relevant case law where applicable. (10)
, Pvl3704 May/June Examination 2025
Question 01
Proving a clear connection between one party's loss and another's gain is the essential
requirement in South African unjustified enrichment law, which safeguards against
claims based on indirect benefits while upholding the law's commitment to fairness
and justice.
South African law requires understanding the direct loss-gain connection as one of
four key elements for proving unjust enrichment:
The defendant must have been given a benefit
The plaintiff must have endured a loss.
It is necessary for these events to be directly connected (showing that the gain was
incurred at the plaintiff's expense).
This transfer must not have a valid legal basis.
In the case of Prasa v Community property company Ltd SCA the court decided that
simply saying the four basic elements (including the 'at the expense of' requirement)
does not constitute a valid enrichment cause of action, and the Supreme Court of
Appeal rejected the enrichment argument. This case confirms that South African
legislation does not acknowledge a general enrichment claim solely on the four
requirements.
In the case of McCarthy Retail Ltd vs Shortdistance Carriers CC, the plaintiff
demanded payment for services made even though they did not have a formal
contract. According to the Supreme Court of Appeal, claims for unfair enrichment must
be classified as condictio indebiti if there is no direct contract involved. Their
observation was that proving causation can be challenging, which emphasises the
significance of having clear strategy for enrichment claims.
