1|Page
PVL3704 Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026 (Answer Guide) - DUE 20
March 2026
VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED ANSWERS. WRITTEN IN REQUIRED FORMAT AND WITHIN
GIVEN GUIDELINES. IT IS GOOD TO USE AS A GUIDE AND FOR REFERENCE, NEVER
PLAGARIZE. Thank you and success in your academics.
UNISA, 2026
Contents
1. The requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the expense
of the plaintiff ..........................................................................................................................1
Question 2: Availability of an enrichment action for B ......................................................4
References ..............................................................................................................................7
1. The requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the
expense of the plaintiff
In South African law of unjustified enrichment, one of the core general requirements is
that the defendant must have been enriched at the expense of the plaintiff. This
requirement establishes a causal and relational 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 enrichment must result
directly or indirectly from the plaintiff’s loss (Visser 2008).
Meaning and scope of “at the expense of”
The phrase “at the expense of the plaintiff” means that the defendant’s enrichment must
correspond to a diminution in the plaintiff’s patrimony. The courts have clarified that
this does not require a strict one-to-one transfer of the same asset, but there must be a
sufficient nexus between the plaintiff’s loss and the defendant’s gain (Buzzard
Electrical (Pty) Ltd v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments (Pty) Ltd 1996).
, 2|Page
The impoverishment of the plaintiff may occur through:
The transfer of money or property to the defendant,
The discharge of the defendant’s debt by the plaintiff,
The improvement of the defendant’s property using the plaintiff’s resources,
Or the plaintiff rendering services without legal justification (McCarthy Retail Ltd
v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001).
What is essential is that the plaintiff’s loss and the defendant’s gain form part of the
same factual matrix.
Direct and indirect enrichment
South African courts recognise that enrichment may occur directly or indirectly at the
expense of the plaintiff. A direct transfer occurs where the plaintiff pays or delivers
something straight to the defendant. Indirect enrichment arises where the plaintiff’s loss
benefits the defendant through an intermediary.
In Buzzard Electrical (Pty) Ltd v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments (Pty) Ltd
(1996), a subcontractor improved a building owned by the defendant but was paid by
neither the main contractor nor the owner. The court accepted that the building owner
was enriched at the expense of the subcontractor, even though there was no direct
contractual relationship between them. This case confirms that privity of contract is
not required for the “at the expense of” requirement to be satisfied.
Please note that these answers are downloaded by multiple students hence not
advisable to submit without proper paraphrasing.
In case you need assistance with your assignments/ exam please email below,
your work will be handled in a professional manner with distinction and quality
work guaranteed
If you need this document in editable form please email below, ill share for free.
Thank you and all the best in your academics.
PVL3704 Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026 (Answer Guide) - DUE 20
March 2026
VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED ANSWERS. WRITTEN IN REQUIRED FORMAT AND WITHIN
GIVEN GUIDELINES. IT IS GOOD TO USE AS A GUIDE AND FOR REFERENCE, NEVER
PLAGARIZE. Thank you and success in your academics.
UNISA, 2026
Contents
1. The requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the expense
of the plaintiff ..........................................................................................................................1
Question 2: Availability of an enrichment action for B ......................................................4
References ..............................................................................................................................7
1. The requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the
expense of the plaintiff
In South African law of unjustified enrichment, one of the core general requirements is
that the defendant must have been enriched at the expense of the plaintiff. This
requirement establishes a causal and relational 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 enrichment must result
directly or indirectly from the plaintiff’s loss (Visser 2008).
Meaning and scope of “at the expense of”
The phrase “at the expense of the plaintiff” means that the defendant’s enrichment must
correspond to a diminution in the plaintiff’s patrimony. The courts have clarified that
this does not require a strict one-to-one transfer of the same asset, but there must be a
sufficient nexus between the plaintiff’s loss and the defendant’s gain (Buzzard
Electrical (Pty) Ltd v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments (Pty) Ltd 1996).
, 2|Page
The impoverishment of the plaintiff may occur through:
The transfer of money or property to the defendant,
The discharge of the defendant’s debt by the plaintiff,
The improvement of the defendant’s property using the plaintiff’s resources,
Or the plaintiff rendering services without legal justification (McCarthy Retail Ltd
v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001).
What is essential is that the plaintiff’s loss and the defendant’s gain form part of the
same factual matrix.
Direct and indirect enrichment
South African courts recognise that enrichment may occur directly or indirectly at the
expense of the plaintiff. A direct transfer occurs where the plaintiff pays or delivers
something straight to the defendant. Indirect enrichment arises where the plaintiff’s loss
benefits the defendant through an intermediary.
In Buzzard Electrical (Pty) Ltd v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments (Pty) Ltd
(1996), a subcontractor improved a building owned by the defendant but was paid by
neither the main contractor nor the owner. The court accepted that the building owner
was enriched at the expense of the subcontractor, even though there was no direct
contractual relationship between them. This case confirms that privity of contract is
not required for the “at the expense of” requirement to be satisfied.
Please note that these answers are downloaded by multiple students hence not
advisable to submit without proper paraphrasing.
In case you need assistance with your assignments/ exam please email below,
your work will be handled in a professional manner with distinction and quality
work guaranteed
If you need this document in editable form please email below, ill share for free.
Thank you and all the best in your academics.
