MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
Which one of the following statements cannot be regarded as a general requirement for
enrichment liability?
1. The plaintiff must have been impoverished. (requirement)
2. The enrichment must have taken place without a justifiable cause. (requirement)
3. The enrichment must have taken place unlawfully. (not a requirement)
4. The defendant must have been enriched. (requirement)
5. The plaintiff is only entitled to the lesser of his impoverishment and the enrichment of the
defendant. (requirement)
S has concluded a contract with P for the sale of his horse, Big Boy, at a price of R50 000. P
immediately paid the purchase price to S. Unknown to both parties at the time of the conclusion
of the contract, Big Boy had died the day before the conclusion of the contract when he was
kicked by another horse. S immediately used the purchase price to buy a new young foal for
R15 000, to pay his workers’ weekly wages of R8 000, to pay his overdraft of R10 000 and to
pay for a luxury weekend away of R12 000. There remains R5 000 of the money in his savings
account with the bank. This contract of sale is, however, void due to initial impossibility.
Which statement best explains the basis of P’s claim against S?
1. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the
condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. no
2. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the
condictio causa data causa non secuta. no
3. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the
condictio sine causa specialis. no
4. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on
the condictio indebiti.
5. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the
actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis. no
Assume the same facts as in Question 2. Indicate which statement best explains the
extent of P’s enrichment claim:
1. P has an enrichment claim for the full R50 000 paid. no
2. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in the savings account, the
R 15,000 paid for the foal and the weekly wages paid of R8 000. no
3. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in S’s savings account. no
4. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in the savings account and the
R15 000 paid for the foal. no
5. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in the savings account, the R15
000 paid for the foal, the weekly wages paid of R8 000 and the R10 000 paid on the
overdraft.
Indicate which one of the following is not a correct statement in respect of the condictio
ob turpem vel iniustam causam:
MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
,MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
1. A party who acted with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the contract can never
have an enrichment claim against the other party. Not correct statement
2. Performance by the plaintiff must have taken place as a result of an unlawful agreement. Correct
statement
3. The plaintiff must offer to return any performance received when lodging this enrichment
action. Correct statement
4. The court has an equitable discretion to “do justice between man and man” when dealing
with claims based on this enrichment action. Correct statement
5. 1 and 4 are both wrong. No
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis be
used?
1. As a general enrichment action. no
2. Where property is transferred on the grounds of a valid cause which later falls away. yes
3. Where a contract is terminated due to a resolutive condition. no
4. Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement. no
5. Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error. No
Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of another's property?
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of
another person. incorrect
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who unlawfully occupies the immovable property of
another person as if he is the owner thereof. incorrect
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another person
as if he is the owner thereof. correct
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of
another person as if he is the owner thereof. incorrect
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another
person temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee. Incorrect
(A bona or mala fide occupier is always unlawfully in occupation. Answers 1 and 3 are accordingly
incorrect. Occupiers know that they are not the owners of the immovable property and only occupies
temporarily. A possessor occupies as it he or she is the owner of the property)
In which of the following case/s did the court rule that there should no longer be a distinction
between error of fact and error of law for purposes of condictio indebiti?
1. Rooth v The State 1888 2 SAR 259
2. Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A)
3. Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 (3) SA 283 (A)
4. CIR v First National Industrial Bank Ltd 1900 (3) SA 641 (A)
MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
,MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
5. Le Riche v Hamman 1946 AD 648.
B has bought an operating business from S for R1.5 million. After B had taken over the running
of the business, X, a major supplier to the business, refuses to supply B with any product until S
has settled a debt owed to X for goods delivered in an amount of R50 000. B pays S’s debt with
X because he cannot operate the business without the product supplied by X. S refuses to
repay the amount to B.
Indicate which statement best explains which enrichment action, if any, is available to B
against X:
1. B has no claim against X in terms of any enrichment action.
2. B has a claim against X based on the condictio indebiti.
3. B has a claim against X based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
4. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis (extended
management of affairs action).
5. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria (true
management of affairs action).
Answer: B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional contract. B also does
not have the intention to manage X’s affairs. B is paying a debt owed to X and therefore B has
no enrichment claim against X.
Assume the same facts as in the above. Indicate which statement best explains which
enrichment action, if any, is available to B against S.
1. B has a claim against S based on the condictio indebiti.
2. B has a claim against S based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
3. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis (extended
management of affairs action).
4. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria (true
management of affairs action).
5. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of S without
the permission of S.
Answer: As already stated, B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional
contract. B is paying a debt owed by S knowing that he (B) doesn’t owe the debt and therefore
the condictio indebiti will not be available. B’s payment is made to advance his own interests
and therefore the true management of affairs action will not be available to him. In Odendaal v
Van Oudtshoorn 1968 (3) SA 433 (T) the court held that the extended management of affairs
action will be available in these circumstances.
Assume the same facts. Further assume that the reason why S refused to pay
X was because the goods delivered were defective. S had a valid claim for the reduction of the
purchase price of those goods in an amount of R13 000.
Indicate which statement best explains the quantum of B’s claim, if any:
MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
, MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
1. B has a claim against S for the full amount of R50 000.
2. B has a claim against S for only R37 000.
3. B has a claim against X for the full amount of R50 000.
4. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of S without
the permission of S.
5. 3 and 4 are both correct.
Answer: B will claim the full R50 000. S will raise the defence that his enrichment was for a
lesser amount, because he had a valid claim for the reduction of the purchase price.
A owns a factory manufacturing steel in a continuous process. His monthly electricity bill
averages R100 000. He just received a letter from the Johannesburg Municipality in which they
threaten to cut his electricity if he doesn’t immediately pay his “arrear account of R300 000”. A
knows that there must be a mistake, because his account is paid in full, but also knows that if
there is a disruption in his electricity supply he will suffer severe losses. He pays the amount
immediately and sends a letter of complaint with. Advise A whether he will be able to reclaim
the R300 000 he paid, and with which remedy? In your answer discuss the requirements for this
remedy.
The correct action to be instituted by A is the condictio indebiti. (1) This action is available in instances
where a debt not owing was paid. (1) No unlawful, ultra vires or void contract is relevant here and
therefore it seems as if no other condictiones could be applicable.
Requirements: (i) Transfer of ownership in the form of payment of money or delivery of a specific
object (1)
(ii) Payment has to take place under the mistaken belief that the performance was
owing. (1)
(iii) The mistake, either a legal or factual mistake, must have been reasonable in the
circumstances (iustus error).
In general a party cannot reclaim performance with the condictio indebiti if he was aware that
the performance wasn’t owing. (1) Such conduct will be regarded as a donation, unless it was
made under threat or protest. (1) (See Study guide 1, par 4.6 and CIR v First National Industrial
Bank Ltd 1990 3 SA 641 (A).)
A made a payment knowingly that the debt wasn’t owing. For A to succeed with the condictio indebiti
against the Johannesburg Municipality in these circumstances he, firstly, had to prove that he didn’t owe
the Municipality the R300 000. (1) Secondly, that the payment was made involuntarily under the threat
that the electricity supply will be suspended if payment wasn’t made. (1) Thirdly, that A protested
against the amount to be paid at the time of payment by sending a letter of complaint with. (1)
Indicate which one of the following statements most correctly describes the existence of
a general enrichment action in South African law:
1. In Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a
general enrichment action in South African law. incorrect
2. In Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division rejected the existence of
MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
Which one of the following statements cannot be regarded as a general requirement for
enrichment liability?
1. The plaintiff must have been impoverished. (requirement)
2. The enrichment must have taken place without a justifiable cause. (requirement)
3. The enrichment must have taken place unlawfully. (not a requirement)
4. The defendant must have been enriched. (requirement)
5. The plaintiff is only entitled to the lesser of his impoverishment and the enrichment of the
defendant. (requirement)
S has concluded a contract with P for the sale of his horse, Big Boy, at a price of R50 000. P
immediately paid the purchase price to S. Unknown to both parties at the time of the conclusion
of the contract, Big Boy had died the day before the conclusion of the contract when he was
kicked by another horse. S immediately used the purchase price to buy a new young foal for
R15 000, to pay his workers’ weekly wages of R8 000, to pay his overdraft of R10 000 and to
pay for a luxury weekend away of R12 000. There remains R5 000 of the money in his savings
account with the bank. This contract of sale is, however, void due to initial impossibility.
Which statement best explains the basis of P’s claim against S?
1. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the
condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. no
2. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the
condictio causa data causa non secuta. no
3. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the
condictio sine causa specialis. no
4. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on
the condictio indebiti.
5. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the
actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis. no
Assume the same facts as in Question 2. Indicate which statement best explains the
extent of P’s enrichment claim:
1. P has an enrichment claim for the full R50 000 paid. no
2. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in the savings account, the
R 15,000 paid for the foal and the weekly wages paid of R8 000. no
3. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in S’s savings account. no
4. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in the savings account and the
R15 000 paid for the foal. no
5. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in the savings account, the R15
000 paid for the foal, the weekly wages paid of R8 000 and the R10 000 paid on the
overdraft.
Indicate which one of the following is not a correct statement in respect of the condictio
ob turpem vel iniustam causam:
MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
,MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
1. A party who acted with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the contract can never
have an enrichment claim against the other party. Not correct statement
2. Performance by the plaintiff must have taken place as a result of an unlawful agreement. Correct
statement
3. The plaintiff must offer to return any performance received when lodging this enrichment
action. Correct statement
4. The court has an equitable discretion to “do justice between man and man” when dealing
with claims based on this enrichment action. Correct statement
5. 1 and 4 are both wrong. No
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis be
used?
1. As a general enrichment action. no
2. Where property is transferred on the grounds of a valid cause which later falls away. yes
3. Where a contract is terminated due to a resolutive condition. no
4. Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement. no
5. Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error. No
Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of another's property?
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of
another person. incorrect
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who unlawfully occupies the immovable property of
another person as if he is the owner thereof. incorrect
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another person
as if he is the owner thereof. correct
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of
another person as if he is the owner thereof. incorrect
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another
person temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee. Incorrect
(A bona or mala fide occupier is always unlawfully in occupation. Answers 1 and 3 are accordingly
incorrect. Occupiers know that they are not the owners of the immovable property and only occupies
temporarily. A possessor occupies as it he or she is the owner of the property)
In which of the following case/s did the court rule that there should no longer be a distinction
between error of fact and error of law for purposes of condictio indebiti?
1. Rooth v The State 1888 2 SAR 259
2. Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A)
3. Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 (3) SA 283 (A)
4. CIR v First National Industrial Bank Ltd 1900 (3) SA 641 (A)
MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
,MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
5. Le Riche v Hamman 1946 AD 648.
B has bought an operating business from S for R1.5 million. After B had taken over the running
of the business, X, a major supplier to the business, refuses to supply B with any product until S
has settled a debt owed to X for goods delivered in an amount of R50 000. B pays S’s debt with
X because he cannot operate the business without the product supplied by X. S refuses to
repay the amount to B.
Indicate which statement best explains which enrichment action, if any, is available to B
against X:
1. B has no claim against X in terms of any enrichment action.
2. B has a claim against X based on the condictio indebiti.
3. B has a claim against X based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
4. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis (extended
management of affairs action).
5. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria (true
management of affairs action).
Answer: B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional contract. B also does
not have the intention to manage X’s affairs. B is paying a debt owed to X and therefore B has
no enrichment claim against X.
Assume the same facts as in the above. Indicate which statement best explains which
enrichment action, if any, is available to B against S.
1. B has a claim against S based on the condictio indebiti.
2. B has a claim against S based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
3. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis (extended
management of affairs action).
4. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria (true
management of affairs action).
5. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of S without
the permission of S.
Answer: As already stated, B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional
contract. B is paying a debt owed by S knowing that he (B) doesn’t owe the debt and therefore
the condictio indebiti will not be available. B’s payment is made to advance his own interests
and therefore the true management of affairs action will not be available to him. In Odendaal v
Van Oudtshoorn 1968 (3) SA 433 (T) the court held that the extended management of affairs
action will be available in these circumstances.
Assume the same facts. Further assume that the reason why S refused to pay
X was because the goods delivered were defective. S had a valid claim for the reduction of the
purchase price of those goods in an amount of R13 000.
Indicate which statement best explains the quantum of B’s claim, if any:
MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
, MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
1. B has a claim against S for the full amount of R50 000.
2. B has a claim against S for only R37 000.
3. B has a claim against X for the full amount of R50 000.
4. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of S without
the permission of S.
5. 3 and 4 are both correct.
Answer: B will claim the full R50 000. S will raise the defence that his enrichment was for a
lesser amount, because he had a valid claim for the reduction of the purchase price.
A owns a factory manufacturing steel in a continuous process. His monthly electricity bill
averages R100 000. He just received a letter from the Johannesburg Municipality in which they
threaten to cut his electricity if he doesn’t immediately pay his “arrear account of R300 000”. A
knows that there must be a mistake, because his account is paid in full, but also knows that if
there is a disruption in his electricity supply he will suffer severe losses. He pays the amount
immediately and sends a letter of complaint with. Advise A whether he will be able to reclaim
the R300 000 he paid, and with which remedy? In your answer discuss the requirements for this
remedy.
The correct action to be instituted by A is the condictio indebiti. (1) This action is available in instances
where a debt not owing was paid. (1) No unlawful, ultra vires or void contract is relevant here and
therefore it seems as if no other condictiones could be applicable.
Requirements: (i) Transfer of ownership in the form of payment of money or delivery of a specific
object (1)
(ii) Payment has to take place under the mistaken belief that the performance was
owing. (1)
(iii) The mistake, either a legal or factual mistake, must have been reasonable in the
circumstances (iustus error).
In general a party cannot reclaim performance with the condictio indebiti if he was aware that
the performance wasn’t owing. (1) Such conduct will be regarded as a donation, unless it was
made under threat or protest. (1) (See Study guide 1, par 4.6 and CIR v First National Industrial
Bank Ltd 1990 3 SA 641 (A).)
A made a payment knowingly that the debt wasn’t owing. For A to succeed with the condictio indebiti
against the Johannesburg Municipality in these circumstances he, firstly, had to prove that he didn’t owe
the Municipality the R300 000. (1) Secondly, that the payment was made involuntarily under the threat
that the electricity supply will be suspended if payment wasn’t made. (1) Thirdly, that A protested
against the amount to be paid at the time of payment by sending a letter of complaint with. (1)
Indicate which one of the following statements most correctly describes the existence of
a general enrichment action in South African law:
1. In Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a
general enrichment action in South African law. incorrect
2. In Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division rejected the existence of
MCQ exam pack (questions and answers)
