[Company name]
PVL3704 Assignment 1
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2026 - DUE
20 March 2026
[Document subtitle]
USER
[Date]
, Exam (elaborations)
PVL3704 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 - DUE 20
March 2026
PVL3704 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 - DUE 20
March 2026; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations
Ensure your success with us.
Question 1 Discuss the general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment
must have been at the expense of the plaintiff. Refer in your answer to case
law. (15) Question 2 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, the money was confiscated by the
police during a raid of A’s house. Advise B on the availability of an
enrichment action to reclaim the R100,000. Refer to relevant case law. (10)
Total: 25 marks Question 1 Discuss the general requirement that the
defendant’s enrichment must have been at the expense of the plaintiff. Refer
in your answer to case law. (15)
This section addresses two core problems in the South African Law of Enrichment: the general
requirement of "at the expense of another" and the application of the condictio ob turpem vel
iniustam causam in illegal contracts.
Question 1: The Requirement "At the Expense of the Plaintiff"
In South African law, for an enrichment action to succeed, it must be proven that the defendant
was enriched at the expense of the plaintiff. This requirement ensures a causal link between the
defendant’s gain and the plaintiff’s loss.
1. The Double Burden
This requirement implies two things must occur simultaneously:
The Defendant must have been enriched (an increase in assets or a non-decrease in
expenses).
The Plaintiff must have been impoverished (a decrease in assets or a non-increase in
assets).
PVL3704 Assignment 1
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2026 - DUE
20 March 2026
[Document subtitle]
USER
[Date]
, Exam (elaborations)
PVL3704 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 - DUE 20
March 2026
PVL3704 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 - DUE 20
March 2026; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations
Ensure your success with us.
Question 1 Discuss the general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment
must have been at the expense of the plaintiff. Refer in your answer to case
law. (15) Question 2 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, the money was confiscated by the
police during a raid of A’s house. Advise B on the availability of an
enrichment action to reclaim the R100,000. Refer to relevant case law. (10)
Total: 25 marks Question 1 Discuss the general requirement that the
defendant’s enrichment must have been at the expense of the plaintiff. Refer
in your answer to case law. (15)
This section addresses two core problems in the South African Law of Enrichment: the general
requirement of "at the expense of another" and the application of the condictio ob turpem vel
iniustam causam in illegal contracts.
Question 1: The Requirement "At the Expense of the Plaintiff"
In South African law, for an enrichment action to succeed, it must be proven that the defendant
was enriched at the expense of the plaintiff. This requirement ensures a causal link between the
defendant’s gain and the plaintiff’s loss.
1. The Double Burden
This requirement implies two things must occur simultaneously:
The Defendant must have been enriched (an increase in assets or a non-decrease in
expenses).
The Plaintiff must have been impoverished (a decrease in assets or a non-increase in
assets).
