100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached 4.2 TrustPilot
logo-home
Exam (elaborations)

LPL4802 MAY JUNE PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2024 - DUE 30 May 2024 ;

Rating
4.3
(7)
Sold
89
Pages
19
Grade
A+
Uploaded on
24-05-2024
Written in
2023/2024

LPL4802 MAY JUNE PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1 2024 - DUE 30 May 2024 ; 100% TRUSTED workings, explanations and solutions. for assistance Whats-App 0.6.7..1.7.1..1.7.3.9 ................. QUESTION 1: NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS (INJURY TO PERSONALITY) Study the case on Syce and Another v Minister of Police (1119/2022) [2024] ZASCA 30 and answer the questions below. Your answer must be presented in an essay format. It will be marked according to the rubric annexed with this question paper. You must attach the rubric immediately after your answer, and not at the end of the exam. a) Discuss the law that applies to unlawful detention in terms of section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, as amended. Provide relevant authority to enlighten your discussion. (15 marks) b) Explain fully with the aid of authority, the principles (as highlighted in this case) that the court must follow to determine general damages in respect of unlawful detention. (10 marks) [25 marks] Page 5 of 9 QUESTION 2: ONCE AND FOR ALL RULE AND CAUSES OF ACTION The ‘once and for all rule’ is a manifestly popular principle that guides our courts in assessing damages that arise from the breach of contract, delict and other causes of action. Despite heavy criticism from other scholars for its application, there are valid reasons for its support. a) With the aid of valid legal sources, explain the importance of this principle in assessing damages in the South African legal system. (10 marks) DAMAGES FOR NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS b) Explain the view that punitive damages are not part of South African law of damages. Provide authority to support your answer. (8 marks) INJURY TO PERSONALITY c) Briefly explain the concept satisfaction as part of the South African law of damages. Provide authority to support your answer. (7 marks) [25 marks] Page 6 of 9 QUESTION 3 CONTRACTUAL DAMAGES 3.1 Read the facts below and answer the questions that follow. Solarum, a manufacturer of solar panels, sold solar panels to Fikile Construction. Fikile Construction was hired to install solar panels in newly developed townhouses. Fikile Construction contended that the solar panels that were sold to them were defective. They further contended that by the time they had realised that the solar panels were defective; they had already installed the defective solar panels on the roofs of fifteen (15) townhouses. They then had to remove the solar panels from the roofs of these fifteen (15) townhouses and reinstall new solar panels supplied by another manufacturer, Esolar, which cost R1 350 000. They paid transport costs of R18 000. The removal of the defective solar panels and the reinstallation of the new solar panels on the roofs of the fifteen (15) townhouses took them four (4) weeks to complete and cost them R400 000 in labour. Fikile Construction argued that the replacement of the solar panels that were bought from Esolar manufacturers were more expensive than the ones that they had agreed on in their contract with Solarum. (a) If Solarum were to argue that Fikile Construction had a duty to “mitigate their loss”, explain in detail what this argument would be. (5 marks) (b) With reference to the fundamental principle of damages for the breach of contract, explain in detail, how Fikile Construction’s damages would be determined in this case. (5 marks) (c) Using the “contemplation rule”, provide your own assessment of Fikile Construction’s total claim of damages. (5 marks) Page 7 of 9 3.2 Read the facts below and answer the questions that follow. Witbank Coalfield was contracted to deliver coal on 22 January 2024 to Bloemfontein Coal Distributers. Bloemfontein Coal Distributers was contracted to Exxaro and had to dispatch the coal to Exxaro in Johannesburg. Witbank Coalfield was aware of the contract between Bloemfontein Coal Distributers and Exxaro. However, Witbank Coalfield failed to deliver the coal on 22 January 2024. Bloemfontein Coal Distributers had to purchase coal at a higher price from another company in Johannesburg to fulfill the terms of their contract with Exxaro. Bloemfontein Coal Distributers further claim that they were inconvenienced by Witbank Coalfield’s actions in this regard. (a) Discuss in detail, how the “market price rule” would be used to determine Bloemfontein Coal Distributers’ claim for damages against Witbank Coalfield. (5 marks) (b) Can Bloemfontein Coal Distributers claim general damages of inconvenience? Refer to relevant case law in support of your answer. (5 marks) [25 marks] Page 8 of 9 QUESTION 4 DRAFTING (NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF PATRIMONIAL LOSS) Read the facts below and answer the questions that follow. Centurion was subjected to heavy rainfall resulting in numerous potholes. Municipal workers of the City of Tshwane were instructed to repair all potholes on walkways in the area to prevent further damage which could be detrimental to pedestrians. The Municipal workers were busy repairing one of the walkways that were damaged by the heavy storms. During their lunchbreak, the workers walked to a nearby cafe to buy food. They left the big cavity in the walkway unattended and did not cordon it off or put up any signs warning the pedestrians of the hazard. Dr Mary Motsepe, who works at a nearby hospital embarked on her customary lunch hour jog along the walkway. Mary is nearsighted but leaves her spectacles in her office because she perspires profusely during her jog. While sprinting the final stretch of her jog, Mary notices the cavity in the walkway too late. She slips and falls into the cavity. She breaks her arm, fractures two ribs and sustains a severe concussion. Mary was admitted to hospital where she was treated for a period of 2 months due to the severity of her injuries. Mary is traumatized by the incident and is now reluctant to jog outdoors. a) Draft the particulars of claim that Dr Motsepe must lodge in the High Court, where she claims both general and special damages. In your answer, provide very clear heads of damage and describe them fully, in terms of the applicable Uniform Rules of Court that govern pleadings of this nature. You are reminded to number your paragraphs logically and consecutively, with sub paragraphs where applicable. [25 marks] Marks will be awarded as follows for the drafting of the particulars of claim: i) Citation of the court and parties (5 marks) ii) Pertinent background (5 marks) Page 9 of 9 iii) Special damages (5marks) iv) General damages (5 marks) v) Prayers (5 marks)

Show more Read less
Institution
Course









Whoops! We can’t load your doc right now. Try again or contact support.

Connected book

Written for

Institution
Course

Document information

Uploaded on
May 24, 2024
Number of pages
19
Written in
2023/2024
Type
Exam (elaborations)
Contains
Questions & answers

Subjects

Content preview

LPL4802
PORTFOLIO Semester 1 2024
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations

Unique number: 790512

Due Date: 30 May 2024

QUESTION 1

a.

Unlawful detention in terms of section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, as
amended, refers to the illegal and wrongful deprivation of a person's liberty by law
enforcement authorities without just cause. Section 59 of the Act pertains to the release of
a detainee on bail before their first appearance in court.1

Section 59(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act allows for the release on bail of an accused
who is in custody for certain offenses, including driving under the influence of alcohol, by
any police official of or above the rank of non-commissioned officer, in consultation with the
police official charged with the investigation. This provision gives the police the authority to
consider and grant bail to a detained person before their initial court appearance.

Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
• Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
• Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
• Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.


Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without
any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of
reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison, research
and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced, resold or transmitted in any
form or by any means.

, QUESTION 1

a.

Unlawful detention in terms of section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, as
amended, refers to the illegal and wrongful deprivation of a person's liberty by law
enforcement authorities without just cause. Section 59 of the Act pertains to the
release of a detainee on bail before their first appearance in court.1

Section 59(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act allows for the release on bail of an
accused who is in custody for certain offenses, including driving under the influence
of alcohol, by any police official of or above the rank of non-commissioned officer, in
consultation with the police official charged with the investigation. This provision gives
the police the authority to consider and grant bail to a detained person before their
initial court appearance.

Unlawful detention can occur if the police fail to adhere to the requirements of section
59, such as failing to inform the detainee of their right to apply for bail or unreasonably
delaying the process of considering the detainee's release on bail. Additionally, if a
detainee is not brought before a lower court as soon as reasonably possible, but within
48 hours after the arrest, their continued detention may be unlawful according to
section 59(1)(c) of the Act.

In the case of Syce and Another v Minister of Police2, the issue of unlawful detention
arose in relation to the arrest and subsequent detention of Mr Syce. The court found
that the Minister failed to justify Mr Syce's continued detention after his return to the
police station, as there was no evidence to explain the circumstances leading to Mr
Syce's release in terms of section 59 of the CPA3. Additionally, there was no evidence
presented to challenge Mr Syce's assertion that he was not informed of his right to
apply for bail in accordance with section 50(1)(b) of the CPA. This lack of justification
rendered Mr Syce's continued detention unlawful.




1
Section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
2
Syce and Another v Minister of Police (1119/2022) [2024] ZASCA 30.
3
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without
any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of
reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison, research
and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced, resold or transmitted in any
form or by any means.
$3.04
Get access to the full document:
Purchased by 89 students

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

Reviews from verified buyers

Showing all 7 reviews
1 year ago

1 year ago

1 year ago

1 year ago

1 year ago

1 year ago

1 year ago

4.3

7 reviews

5
4
4
1
3
2
2
0
1
0
Trustworthy reviews on Stuvia

All reviews are made by real Stuvia users after verified purchases.

Get to know the seller

Seller avatar
Reputation scores are based on the amount of documents a seller has sold for a fee and the reviews they have received for those documents. There are three levels: Bronze, Silver and Gold. The better the reputation, the more your can rely on the quality of the sellers work.
EduPal University of South Africa (Unisa)
Follow You need to be logged in order to follow users or courses
Sold
149159
Member since
7 year
Number of followers
35995
Documents
4310
Last sold
1 day ago

4.2

13554 reviews

5
7802
4
2688
3
1790
2
455
1
819

Recently viewed by you

Why students choose Stuvia

Created by fellow students, verified by reviews

Quality you can trust: written by students who passed their tests and reviewed by others who've used these notes.

Didn't get what you expected? Choose another document

No worries! You can instantly pick a different document that better fits what you're looking for.

Pay as you like, start learning right away

No subscription, no commitments. Pay the way you're used to via credit card and download your PDF document instantly.

Student with book image

“Bought, downloaded, and aced it. It really can be that simple.”

Alisha Student

Frequently asked questions