1
IRM1501 Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026 (Answer Guide) - DUE 17 April 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, 2025
Contents
Essay 1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Case Analysis Essay: Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden......................................... 2
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Facts of the Case ............................................................................................................................. 2
3. Legal Question ................................................................................................................................. 4
4. Ratio Decidendi ................................................................................................................................ 4
4.1 Pure Economic Loss and Wrongfulness............................................................................. 4
4.2 Omissions and Legal Duty ...................................................................................................... 4
4.3 Vulnerability to Risk.................................................................................................................. 5
4.4 Indeterminate Liability and Policy Considerations .......................................................... 5
5. Findings of the Court ...................................................................................................................... 5
6. Critical Significance of the Judgment ........................................................................................ 6
7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Essay 2 ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Case Discussion: Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden ................................................ 7
1. Background and Context............................................................................................................... 7
2. Material Facts ................................................................................................................................... 7
3. Issue for Determination ................................................................................................................. 8
4. Court’s Legal Reasoning (Ratio Decidendi) ............................................................................. 8
4.1 Nature of Pure Economic Loss .............................................................................................. 8
4.2 Omissions and the Requirement of a Legal Duty ............................................................. 8
4.3 Plaintiff’s Ability to Avoid Harm ............................................................................................ 9
4.4 Policy Concerns and Indeterminate Liability ..................................................................... 9
5. Decision of the Court ...................................................................................................................... 9
6. Importance of the Judgment ...................................................................................................... 10
7. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 10
, 2
Question
1. Find the case of Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Judith Mary Hawarden (421/2023)
[2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA) (10 June 2024) and summarise it in the
prescribed format (the facts, legal question, ratio decidendi and the findings)
Essay 1
Case Analysis Essay: Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden
1. Introduction
The rapid increase in cybercrime, particularly Business Email Compromise (BEC) fraud,
has raised complex questions about liability for pure economic loss in South African law.
Courts are increasingly required to balance the need to protect innocent victims against
the danger of imposing indeterminate and excessive liability on professionals and
institutions. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) addressed these concerns directly in
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden (421/2023) [2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA
9 (SCA).
This case is significant because it clarifies the limits of delictual liability for omissions
causing pure economic loss and reaffirms the central role of wrongfulness, policy
considerations, and personal responsibility in determining liability. This essay analyses
the case by setting out the facts, identifying the legal question, examining the ratio
decidendi, and discussing the court’s findings and their broader implications.
2. Facts of the Case
Ms Judith Mary Hawarden purchased an immovable property for R6 million in May
2019. The conveyancing attorneys appointed for the transaction were Edward Nathan
Sonnenberg Inc (ENS), a well-established law firm. In accordance with the sale
IRM1501 Assignment 2 Semester 1 2026 (Answer Guide) - DUE 17 April 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, 2025
Contents
Essay 1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Case Analysis Essay: Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden......................................... 2
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Facts of the Case ............................................................................................................................. 2
3. Legal Question ................................................................................................................................. 4
4. Ratio Decidendi ................................................................................................................................ 4
4.1 Pure Economic Loss and Wrongfulness............................................................................. 4
4.2 Omissions and Legal Duty ...................................................................................................... 4
4.3 Vulnerability to Risk.................................................................................................................. 5
4.4 Indeterminate Liability and Policy Considerations .......................................................... 5
5. Findings of the Court ...................................................................................................................... 5
6. Critical Significance of the Judgment ........................................................................................ 6
7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Essay 2 ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Case Discussion: Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden ................................................ 7
1. Background and Context............................................................................................................... 7
2. Material Facts ................................................................................................................................... 7
3. Issue for Determination ................................................................................................................. 8
4. Court’s Legal Reasoning (Ratio Decidendi) ............................................................................. 8
4.1 Nature of Pure Economic Loss .............................................................................................. 8
4.2 Omissions and the Requirement of a Legal Duty ............................................................. 8
4.3 Plaintiff’s Ability to Avoid Harm ............................................................................................ 9
4.4 Policy Concerns and Indeterminate Liability ..................................................................... 9
5. Decision of the Court ...................................................................................................................... 9
6. Importance of the Judgment ...................................................................................................... 10
7. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 10
, 2
Question
1. Find the case of Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Judith Mary Hawarden (421/2023)
[2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA 9 (SCA) (10 June 2024) and summarise it in the
prescribed format (the facts, legal question, ratio decidendi and the findings)
Essay 1
Case Analysis Essay: Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden
1. Introduction
The rapid increase in cybercrime, particularly Business Email Compromise (BEC) fraud,
has raised complex questions about liability for pure economic loss in South African law.
Courts are increasingly required to balance the need to protect innocent victims against
the danger of imposing indeterminate and excessive liability on professionals and
institutions. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) addressed these concerns directly in
Edward Nathan Sonnenberg Inc v Hawarden (421/2023) [2024] ZASCA 90; 2024 (5) SA
9 (SCA).
This case is significant because it clarifies the limits of delictual liability for omissions
causing pure economic loss and reaffirms the central role of wrongfulness, policy
considerations, and personal responsibility in determining liability. This essay analyses
the case by setting out the facts, identifying the legal question, examining the ratio
decidendi, and discussing the court’s findings and their broader implications.
2. Facts of the Case
Ms Judith Mary Hawarden purchased an immovable property for R6 million in May
2019. The conveyancing attorneys appointed for the transaction were Edward Nathan
Sonnenberg Inc (ENS), a well-established law firm. In accordance with the sale
