PVL3704
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due date: 20 March 2026
QUESTION 1
The general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the expense
of the plaintiff means that there must be a causal link between the enrichment of the
defendant and the impoverishment of the plaintiff. It is not sufficient that the defendant is
enriched and the plaintiff is impoverished independently. The law of unjustified enrichment
requires that the one must have occurred because of the other, otherwise no enrichment
liability can arise. In most cases this causal connection is clear, but difficulties arise where
enrichment is indirect.1
Indirect enrichment occurs where the plaintiff renders performance to one person, but the
benefit of that performance accrues to another. In such cases, the question is whether the
ultimate beneficiary was enriched at the expense of the plaintiff or at the expense of an
intermediary.1 De Vos argues that the enrichment must be assessed strictly and that,
where an intermediary exists, the enrichment is at the expense of that intermediary and
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen
as a replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged
to perform their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific
assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the
information in these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content.
The buyer is responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when
applying it to their assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's
policies regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and
sources of inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may
be considered academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences
arising from the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or
any other negative consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, QUESTION 1
The general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the
expense of the plaintiff means that there must be a causal link between the
enrichment of the defendant and the impoverishment of the plaintiff. It is not
sufficient that the defendant is enriched and the plaintiff is impoverished
independently. The law of unjustified enrichment requires that the one must have
occurred because of the other, otherwise no enrichment liability can arise. In most
cases this causal connection is clear, but difficulties arise where enrichment is
indirect.1
Indirect enrichment occurs where the plaintiff renders performance to one person,
but the benefit of that performance accrues to another. In such cases, the question is
whether the ultimate beneficiary was enriched at the expense of the plaintiff or at the
expense of an intermediary.2 De Vos argues that the enrichment must be assessed
strictly and that, where an intermediary exists, the enrichment is at the expense of
that intermediary and not the original performer. According to him, the poverty or
insolvency of the intermediary cannot alter the juridical relationship between the
plaintiff and the enriched party.3
This view was endorsed in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd, where a contractor built a
swimming pool for a person with whom he had a contract, believing the land
belonged to that person, when in fact it belonged to another. When the employer
disappeared without paying, the contractor sued the landowner on the basis of
enrichment. The court held that the landowner was enriched at the expense of the
employer and not the contractor, and the enrichment action therefore failed.4
A different approach was adopted in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue
Investments, where the Appellate Division distinguished between cases like Gouws
and situations where the owner contracts for improvements and performance is
rendered through subcontracting. In such cases, the enrichment may be regarded as
1
J C Sonnekus Unjustified Enrichment in South African Law (2012) 45.
2
D Visser Unjustified Enrichment (2008) 312.
3
De Vos Verrykingsaanspreeklikheid in die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg (1987) 98.
4
Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T).
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due date: 20 March 2026
QUESTION 1
The general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the expense
of the plaintiff means that there must be a causal link between the enrichment of the
defendant and the impoverishment of the plaintiff. It is not sufficient that the defendant is
enriched and the plaintiff is impoverished independently. The law of unjustified enrichment
requires that the one must have occurred because of the other, otherwise no enrichment
liability can arise. In most cases this causal connection is clear, but difficulties arise where
enrichment is indirect.1
Indirect enrichment occurs where the plaintiff renders performance to one person, but the
benefit of that performance accrues to another. In such cases, the question is whether the
ultimate beneficiary was enriched at the expense of the plaintiff or at the expense of an
intermediary.1 De Vos argues that the enrichment must be assessed strictly and that,
where an intermediary exists, the enrichment is at the expense of that intermediary and
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen
as a replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged
to perform their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific
assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the
information in these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content.
The buyer is responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when
applying it to their assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's
policies regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and
sources of inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may
be considered academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences
arising from the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or
any other negative consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, QUESTION 1
The general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the
expense of the plaintiff means that there must be a causal link between the
enrichment of the defendant and the impoverishment of the plaintiff. It is not
sufficient that the defendant is enriched and the plaintiff is impoverished
independently. The law of unjustified enrichment requires that the one must have
occurred because of the other, otherwise no enrichment liability can arise. In most
cases this causal connection is clear, but difficulties arise where enrichment is
indirect.1
Indirect enrichment occurs where the plaintiff renders performance to one person,
but the benefit of that performance accrues to another. In such cases, the question is
whether the ultimate beneficiary was enriched at the expense of the plaintiff or at the
expense of an intermediary.2 De Vos argues that the enrichment must be assessed
strictly and that, where an intermediary exists, the enrichment is at the expense of
that intermediary and not the original performer. According to him, the poverty or
insolvency of the intermediary cannot alter the juridical relationship between the
plaintiff and the enriched party.3
This view was endorsed in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd, where a contractor built a
swimming pool for a person with whom he had a contract, believing the land
belonged to that person, when in fact it belonged to another. When the employer
disappeared without paying, the contractor sued the landowner on the basis of
enrichment. The court held that the landowner was enriched at the expense of the
employer and not the contractor, and the enrichment action therefore failed.4
A different approach was adopted in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue
Investments, where the Appellate Division distinguished between cases like Gouws
and situations where the owner contracts for improvements and performance is
rendered through subcontracting. In such cases, the enrichment may be regarded as
1
J C Sonnekus Unjustified Enrichment in South African Law (2012) 45.
2
D Visser Unjustified Enrichment (2008) 312.
3
De Vos Verrykingsaanspreeklikheid in die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg (1987) 98.
4
Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T).
