Pvl 3704 Enrichment Liability And Estoppel

PVL 3704 ENRICHMENT LIABILITY AND ESTOPPEL Requirements for Estoppel: 1. Misrepresentation – creation of false belief by estoppel denier. (1) 2. Fault (intent or negligence) on part of estoppel denier. (1) 3. Prejudice on part of estoppel assertor. (1) 4. Causation – the estoppel assertor must have acted to his detriment as a result of the misrepresentation of the estoppel denier. (1) 5. The raising of estoppel must be permissible in law in the circumstances. (1) A. Misrepresentation • Misrepresentation is any word or conduct that communicates an untruth. Generally, it must be a misrepresentation of fact and may consist of a positive misrepresentation or by omission where there is a legal duty to speak or otherwise act positively. (2) • Misrepresentation where owner leaves his property in possession of another. General rule: mere leaving of one’s property in possession of another does not create the impression that the latter has the right to sell the property (1 mark). Examples from case law Adams v Mocke: A authorized his driver to hire horses if his horse became disabled on the road – he hired a mule from E and left the lame horse there until the mule was returned. He sold the horse. A claimed it back and succeeded. The court stated that: ...’an owner does not lose his right of vindication unless he had so entrusted his goods under circumstances which might fairly and reasonably induce third parties to believe that the ostensible owner was the true owner or had authority from the true owner to dispose of the goods. In the present case no such circumstances have been proved to exist. The fact that the plaintiff entrusted the postcart horses to his driver could lead no one reasonably to believe that he had the right to sell or exchange horses.’ (3) In Morum Bros Ltd v Nepgen, the facts were the following: A sold two horses to S, subject to a suspensive condition that, despite delivery ownership would not pass before the purchase price had been paid. After the horses had been delivered to him but before he had paid the purchase price, S sold them to a bona fide purchaser. A thereupon instituted the rei vindicatio against the second purchaser, who invoked the doctrine of estoppel, contending that A, the owner, had placed S in a position to represent himself as the owner of the horses. The court rejected this contention and ordered the defendant to return the horses to A. (3)