PVL3043 - MCQ
Version 1
Page 1 of 27
VARIOUS MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
Question 1:
Which statement best describes the basis on which unjustified enrichment law is based in SA
law:
1. Unjustified enrichment provides an alternative claim to contractual and delictual claims in
cases where a party simultaneously has a contractual or delictual claim.
2. Unjustified enrichment provides a basis for a claim where the enrichment of the enriched
person has been obtained in an unlawful manner.
3. Unjustified enrichment provides a basis for a claim where there has been a transfer of
property or value from he impoverished party to the enriched party without a sufficient legal
ground.
4. Unjustified enrichment provides a basis for a claim where the enriched party obtained its
enrichment through the use of unfair contract terms.
The following facts are relevant for Questions 2 and 3:
A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While travelling in the Northern
Cape, the vehicle breaks down. A contracts with C, a garage in Springbok, to repair the
vehicle at a cost of R12,000. After two days A leases another vehicle from X and
completes his trip. A departs for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B.
Question 2:
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim against B and the authority on which it is
based?
(1) In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pool (Pty) Ltd 1968 it was held that C has no
claim against B because B has not been enriched at C’s expense.
(2) In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pool (Pty) Ltd 1968 it was held that C has no
claim against B because B has not been enriched.
(3) The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
avenue Investments 1996.
(4) The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
avenue Investments 1996.
Question 3:
Which statement best explains whether C has a retention right or whether he can exercise it?
(1) C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until it has been paid in full
contract price.
(2) C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until such time as it has been
paid for its necessary expenses.
(3) In terms of the decision in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments
1996 party C has no retention right because he has no enrichment action against B.
(4) C has no retention right under these circumstances.
, PVL3043 - MCQ
Version 1
Page 2 of 27
Question 4:
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
(1) Where an executor who is now functus officio has made a payment to heirs which were
not due because a creditor had lodged its claim too late.
(2) Where a person has made a payment in terms of a contract subject to a resolutive
condition and the contract has now been extinguished due to the condition being
fulfilled.
(3) Where an undue payment has been made in circumstances where the mistake is not
excusable.
(4) Where a bank has made payment in terms of a cheque that has been stopped.
Question 5:
Which of the following is/are (a) prerequisite(s) for a claim in terms of the condictio indebiti?
(1) the enrichment was illegal
(2) the defendant was unlawfully enriched
(3) there was a causal link between the enrichment and impoverishment
(4) payment was made in terms of a valid contract
Question 6:
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, it was confiscated by the
police during a raid of A’s house. Which statement best explains the legal position of the
possible claim B may have against A?
(1) In circumstances like these a court may exercise an equitable judicial discretion to relax
the par delictum rule, depending on the relative turpitude of the parties’ conduct.
(2) B has a claim for damage against A due to a breach of contract.
(3) B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio sine cause specialis because there is
no other enrichment action at his disposal.
(4) B has a claim for damage against A based on delict.
Question 7:
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis be used?
(1) as a general enrichment action
(2) where a bank has made payment in terms of a cheque that had been stopped by the
drawer
(3) Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement.
(4) Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error.
The following facts are relevant for Question 8-10.
K is the owner of a farm adjacent to that of L. Unbeknown to K and L, K has been occupying
part of L’s land due to a fence that was mistakenly put up 10 years ago. K has effected the
following improvements on that part of the farm: (a) built a dam at a cost of R30, 000; (b) a
luxury lapa on the edge of the dam at a cost of R100,000; (c) a borehole at a cost of R20, 000;
(d) planted fruit trees at a cost of R15,000; (e) planted mealies which are almost ready to
harvest at a cost of R60,000 (value R120,000). During his tenure of the land he has harvested
, PVL3043 - MCQ
Version 1
Page 3 of 27
mealies worth R300,000 (production cost R250,000) and fruit from the fruit trees sold at
R55,000. L has now become aware of the true situation and demands that K leaves the land.
Question 8:
Which statement best explains the nature of K’s possession or occupation of the land?
(1) K is a bona fide occupier of the land
(2) K is a mala fide occupier of the land
(3) K is a bona fide possessor of the land
(4) K is a lawful occupier of the land
Question 9:
Which statement best explains the nature and extent of K’s claim(s), if any?
(1) K has an enrichment action for all the expenses that he has incurred on the
improvement of L’s land.
(2) K has an enrichment action for the full amount of all the necessary and useful expenses
he has incurred.
(3) K has an enrichment action for the useful and necessary expenses he has incurred to
the extent that those expenses have increased the value of L’s land.
(4) K has no claim for the mealies which have not been harvested yet as they now belong
to L.
Question 10:
Which statement best explains the amounts that may be brought into account against K’s
claim, if any?
(1) L is not entitled to subtract anything from K’s enrichment claim.
(2) L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of K’s
occupation of the land.
(3) L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of the
mealies and fruit harvested by K and the value of K’s occupation of the land.
(4) L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of the
mealies harvested by K minus the production costs.
Question 11:
X and Y have concluded a contract in terms of which Y must perform certain building work for X
against payment of R200,000. The building work is not completed by Y and X has concluded a
contract with Z to complete the work at a cost of R30,000. X now refuses to pay Y because he
has failed to complete his contract. Indicate which one of the following statements best
describes Y’s possible claim:
(1) Y has no claim because he has committed a breach of contract.
(2) Y has a contractual claim against X for a reduced amount (R170,000) because X has
accepted the building work and has made use of it.
(3) Y has an enrichment claim for a reduced amount to be calculated on the basis of the
amount by which the property of X had in fact increased in value.
(4) Y is entitled to payment of the full contract price despite the fact that he has not
completed his contract.
Version 1
Page 1 of 27
VARIOUS MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
Question 1:
Which statement best describes the basis on which unjustified enrichment law is based in SA
law:
1. Unjustified enrichment provides an alternative claim to contractual and delictual claims in
cases where a party simultaneously has a contractual or delictual claim.
2. Unjustified enrichment provides a basis for a claim where the enrichment of the enriched
person has been obtained in an unlawful manner.
3. Unjustified enrichment provides a basis for a claim where there has been a transfer of
property or value from he impoverished party to the enriched party without a sufficient legal
ground.
4. Unjustified enrichment provides a basis for a claim where the enriched party obtained its
enrichment through the use of unfair contract terms.
The following facts are relevant for Questions 2 and 3:
A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While travelling in the Northern
Cape, the vehicle breaks down. A contracts with C, a garage in Springbok, to repair the
vehicle at a cost of R12,000. After two days A leases another vehicle from X and
completes his trip. A departs for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B.
Question 2:
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim against B and the authority on which it is
based?
(1) In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pool (Pty) Ltd 1968 it was held that C has no
claim against B because B has not been enriched at C’s expense.
(2) In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pool (Pty) Ltd 1968 it was held that C has no
claim against B because B has not been enriched.
(3) The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
avenue Investments 1996.
(4) The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
avenue Investments 1996.
Question 3:
Which statement best explains whether C has a retention right or whether he can exercise it?
(1) C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until it has been paid in full
contract price.
(2) C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until such time as it has been
paid for its necessary expenses.
(3) In terms of the decision in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments
1996 party C has no retention right because he has no enrichment action against B.
(4) C has no retention right under these circumstances.
, PVL3043 - MCQ
Version 1
Page 2 of 27
Question 4:
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
(1) Where an executor who is now functus officio has made a payment to heirs which were
not due because a creditor had lodged its claim too late.
(2) Where a person has made a payment in terms of a contract subject to a resolutive
condition and the contract has now been extinguished due to the condition being
fulfilled.
(3) Where an undue payment has been made in circumstances where the mistake is not
excusable.
(4) Where a bank has made payment in terms of a cheque that has been stopped.
Question 5:
Which of the following is/are (a) prerequisite(s) for a claim in terms of the condictio indebiti?
(1) the enrichment was illegal
(2) the defendant was unlawfully enriched
(3) there was a causal link between the enrichment and impoverishment
(4) payment was made in terms of a valid contract
Question 6:
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, it was confiscated by the
police during a raid of A’s house. Which statement best explains the legal position of the
possible claim B may have against A?
(1) In circumstances like these a court may exercise an equitable judicial discretion to relax
the par delictum rule, depending on the relative turpitude of the parties’ conduct.
(2) B has a claim for damage against A due to a breach of contract.
(3) B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio sine cause specialis because there is
no other enrichment action at his disposal.
(4) B has a claim for damage against A based on delict.
Question 7:
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis be used?
(1) as a general enrichment action
(2) where a bank has made payment in terms of a cheque that had been stopped by the
drawer
(3) Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement.
(4) Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error.
The following facts are relevant for Question 8-10.
K is the owner of a farm adjacent to that of L. Unbeknown to K and L, K has been occupying
part of L’s land due to a fence that was mistakenly put up 10 years ago. K has effected the
following improvements on that part of the farm: (a) built a dam at a cost of R30, 000; (b) a
luxury lapa on the edge of the dam at a cost of R100,000; (c) a borehole at a cost of R20, 000;
(d) planted fruit trees at a cost of R15,000; (e) planted mealies which are almost ready to
harvest at a cost of R60,000 (value R120,000). During his tenure of the land he has harvested
, PVL3043 - MCQ
Version 1
Page 3 of 27
mealies worth R300,000 (production cost R250,000) and fruit from the fruit trees sold at
R55,000. L has now become aware of the true situation and demands that K leaves the land.
Question 8:
Which statement best explains the nature of K’s possession or occupation of the land?
(1) K is a bona fide occupier of the land
(2) K is a mala fide occupier of the land
(3) K is a bona fide possessor of the land
(4) K is a lawful occupier of the land
Question 9:
Which statement best explains the nature and extent of K’s claim(s), if any?
(1) K has an enrichment action for all the expenses that he has incurred on the
improvement of L’s land.
(2) K has an enrichment action for the full amount of all the necessary and useful expenses
he has incurred.
(3) K has an enrichment action for the useful and necessary expenses he has incurred to
the extent that those expenses have increased the value of L’s land.
(4) K has no claim for the mealies which have not been harvested yet as they now belong
to L.
Question 10:
Which statement best explains the amounts that may be brought into account against K’s
claim, if any?
(1) L is not entitled to subtract anything from K’s enrichment claim.
(2) L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of K’s
occupation of the land.
(3) L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of the
mealies and fruit harvested by K and the value of K’s occupation of the land.
(4) L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of the
mealies harvested by K minus the production costs.
Question 11:
X and Y have concluded a contract in terms of which Y must perform certain building work for X
against payment of R200,000. The building work is not completed by Y and X has concluded a
contract with Z to complete the work at a cost of R30,000. X now refuses to pay Y because he
has failed to complete his contract. Indicate which one of the following statements best
describes Y’s possible claim:
(1) Y has no claim because he has committed a breach of contract.
(2) Y has a contractual claim against X for a reduced amount (R170,000) because X has
accepted the building work and has made use of it.
(3) Y has an enrichment claim for a reduced amount to be calculated on the basis of the
amount by which the property of X had in fact increased in value.
(4) Y is entitled to payment of the full contract price despite the fact that he has not
completed his contract.
