Page 1 of 83
PVL3704 - ENRICHMENT LIABILITY AND ESTOPPEL EXAM
QUESTIONS LATEST VERSION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
2026 EDITION
PVL3704 EXAM 250-QUESTIONS
ENRICHMENT LIABILITY AND ESTOPPEL EXAMINATION
EXAMINATION QUESTIONS (1-250)
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL ENRICHMENT REQUIREMENTS
(Questions 1–40)
1. Which of the following statements cannot be regarded as a general requirement
for enrichment liability?
A) The plaintiff must have been impoverished.
B) The enrichment must have taken place without a justifiable cause.
C) The enrichment must have taken place unlawfully.
D) The defendant must have been enriched.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: There is no general requirement of unlawfulness when dealing with
unjustified enrichment law, although it may be relevant in the case of the condictio ob
turpem vel iniustam causam. The four requirements are: (1) the defendant must have
been enriched, (2) the plaintiff must have been impoverished, (3) the enrichment must
have taken place without a justifiable cause, and (4) there must be a causal link
between the enrichment and the impoverishment.
2. In the debate on a general enrichment action, the case of Nortjé v Pool 1966 3 SA
96 (A) is significant because:
, Page 2 of 83
A) It established the condictio indebiti.
B) It is central to the debate on a general enrichment action.
C) It created the condictio furtiva.
D) It abolished the condictio causa data causa non secuta.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: Nortjé v Pool is a central case in the debate on a general enrichment action
in South African law. The case is frequently discussed in relation to whether there
should be a single, overarching enrichment action, and whether the existing specific
condictiones should be replaced or supplemented by a general enrichment remedy.
3. The case of McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 3 SA 482 (SCA)
is significant because it:
A) Rejected the general enrichment action.
B) Recognised a broader enrichment principle.
C) Limited enrichment liability to specific condictiones.
D) Abolished the condictio indebiti.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC is significant in the debate
on a general enrichment action because it recognised a broader enrichment principle.
The case suggests that a general enrichment action may be developing in South African
law, moving beyond the traditional narrow approach that limited liability to specific
condictiones.
4. The case of Gouws v Jester Pools is significant for which principle?
A) The value of a service rendered can be claimed by any condictio.
B) The value of a service rendered cannot be claimed by any of the condictiones sine
causa.
C) The value of a service rendered can only be claimed under the condictio indebiti.
D) Services rendered cannot constitute enrichment.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The prevalent view appears to have been that the value of a service rendered
cannot be claimed by ANY of the condictiones sine causa. This is the principle
, Page 3 of 83
established in Gouws v Jester Pools, which significantly limits the scope of enrichment
claims for services rendered without a contract.
5. What is the function of the condictio furtiva in South African law?
A) To recover payments made in error
B) To recover stolen property
C) To recover benefits from an unenforceable contract
D) To recover gifts
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The condictio furtiva is one of the recognised condictiones in South African
law. Its specific function is to recover stolen property (or its value) from a thief. It
operates independently of the condictio indebiti and has its own requirements.
6. Which of the following is a recognised condictio in South African law?
A) Condictio ex turpi causa
B) Condictio indebiti
C) Condictio ex delicto
D) Condictio ex contractu
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The condictio indebiti is a recognised enrichment action in South African
law. The condictio ex turpi causa (from an illegal cause) is not a standard condictio, and
condictio ex contractu and condictio ex delicto are not recognised as separate
condictiones. The condictio indebiti is the most frequently used enrichment remedy.
7. The condictio indebiti is often used in which type of problem scenario?
A) A pays B money mistakenly believing a debt exists.
B) A improves B's property without permission.
C) A steals property from B.
D) A and B have a valid contract.
Correct Answer: A
Rationale: The condictio indebiti is most commonly used in problem scenarios where A
pays B money mistakenly believing a debt exists. This is the classic application of the
, Page 4 of 83
remedy and is frequently tested in exam questions. The condictio indebiti requires a
mistaken payment.
8. Which of the following is a valid defence against a claim under the condictio
indebiti?
A) The payer acted in good faith.
B) The payer made a mistake.
C) The payer knew the payment was not due.
D) The payer was a minor.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: If the payer knew the payment was not due, the condictio indebiti will fail
because there is no error. The condictio indebiti requires a mistaken payment;
intentional payments are not recoverable. Knowledge that the payment is not due
negates the error requirement.
9. The condictio indebiti is NOT available if the debt was:
A) Paid under duress.
B) Actually owed at the time of payment.
C) Paid under protest.
D) Paid by mistake.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The condictio indebiti is not available if the debt was actually owed at the
time of payment. If the payment was legally due, there is no mistake and no unjustified
enrichment. The very essence of the condictio indebiti is the recovery of payments that
were not due.
10. What are the four general requirements for an enrichment action according to
the PVL3704 study guide?
A) (1) Defendant enriched, (2) Plaintiff impoverished, (3) Enrichment must be unlawful,
(4) Causal link.
B) (1) Defendant enriched, (2) Plaintiff impoverished, (3) No justifiable cause, (4) Causal
link.
C) (1) Defendant enriched, (2) Plaintiff impoverished, (3) Enrichment must be
PVL3704 - ENRICHMENT LIABILITY AND ESTOPPEL EXAM
QUESTIONS LATEST VERSION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
2026 EDITION
PVL3704 EXAM 250-QUESTIONS
ENRICHMENT LIABILITY AND ESTOPPEL EXAMINATION
EXAMINATION QUESTIONS (1-250)
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL ENRICHMENT REQUIREMENTS
(Questions 1–40)
1. Which of the following statements cannot be regarded as a general requirement
for enrichment liability?
A) The plaintiff must have been impoverished.
B) The enrichment must have taken place without a justifiable cause.
C) The enrichment must have taken place unlawfully.
D) The defendant must have been enriched.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: There is no general requirement of unlawfulness when dealing with
unjustified enrichment law, although it may be relevant in the case of the condictio ob
turpem vel iniustam causam. The four requirements are: (1) the defendant must have
been enriched, (2) the plaintiff must have been impoverished, (3) the enrichment must
have taken place without a justifiable cause, and (4) there must be a causal link
between the enrichment and the impoverishment.
2. In the debate on a general enrichment action, the case of Nortjé v Pool 1966 3 SA
96 (A) is significant because:
, Page 2 of 83
A) It established the condictio indebiti.
B) It is central to the debate on a general enrichment action.
C) It created the condictio furtiva.
D) It abolished the condictio causa data causa non secuta.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: Nortjé v Pool is a central case in the debate on a general enrichment action
in South African law. The case is frequently discussed in relation to whether there
should be a single, overarching enrichment action, and whether the existing specific
condictiones should be replaced or supplemented by a general enrichment remedy.
3. The case of McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 3 SA 482 (SCA)
is significant because it:
A) Rejected the general enrichment action.
B) Recognised a broader enrichment principle.
C) Limited enrichment liability to specific condictiones.
D) Abolished the condictio indebiti.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC is significant in the debate
on a general enrichment action because it recognised a broader enrichment principle.
The case suggests that a general enrichment action may be developing in South African
law, moving beyond the traditional narrow approach that limited liability to specific
condictiones.
4. The case of Gouws v Jester Pools is significant for which principle?
A) The value of a service rendered can be claimed by any condictio.
B) The value of a service rendered cannot be claimed by any of the condictiones sine
causa.
C) The value of a service rendered can only be claimed under the condictio indebiti.
D) Services rendered cannot constitute enrichment.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The prevalent view appears to have been that the value of a service rendered
cannot be claimed by ANY of the condictiones sine causa. This is the principle
, Page 3 of 83
established in Gouws v Jester Pools, which significantly limits the scope of enrichment
claims for services rendered without a contract.
5. What is the function of the condictio furtiva in South African law?
A) To recover payments made in error
B) To recover stolen property
C) To recover benefits from an unenforceable contract
D) To recover gifts
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The condictio furtiva is one of the recognised condictiones in South African
law. Its specific function is to recover stolen property (or its value) from a thief. It
operates independently of the condictio indebiti and has its own requirements.
6. Which of the following is a recognised condictio in South African law?
A) Condictio ex turpi causa
B) Condictio indebiti
C) Condictio ex delicto
D) Condictio ex contractu
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The condictio indebiti is a recognised enrichment action in South African
law. The condictio ex turpi causa (from an illegal cause) is not a standard condictio, and
condictio ex contractu and condictio ex delicto are not recognised as separate
condictiones. The condictio indebiti is the most frequently used enrichment remedy.
7. The condictio indebiti is often used in which type of problem scenario?
A) A pays B money mistakenly believing a debt exists.
B) A improves B's property without permission.
C) A steals property from B.
D) A and B have a valid contract.
Correct Answer: A
Rationale: The condictio indebiti is most commonly used in problem scenarios where A
pays B money mistakenly believing a debt exists. This is the classic application of the
, Page 4 of 83
remedy and is frequently tested in exam questions. The condictio indebiti requires a
mistaken payment.
8. Which of the following is a valid defence against a claim under the condictio
indebiti?
A) The payer acted in good faith.
B) The payer made a mistake.
C) The payer knew the payment was not due.
D) The payer was a minor.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: If the payer knew the payment was not due, the condictio indebiti will fail
because there is no error. The condictio indebiti requires a mistaken payment;
intentional payments are not recoverable. Knowledge that the payment is not due
negates the error requirement.
9. The condictio indebiti is NOT available if the debt was:
A) Paid under duress.
B) Actually owed at the time of payment.
C) Paid under protest.
D) Paid by mistake.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The condictio indebiti is not available if the debt was actually owed at the
time of payment. If the payment was legally due, there is no mistake and no unjustified
enrichment. The very essence of the condictio indebiti is the recovery of payments that
were not due.
10. What are the four general requirements for an enrichment action according to
the PVL3704 study guide?
A) (1) Defendant enriched, (2) Plaintiff impoverished, (3) Enrichment must be unlawful,
(4) Causal link.
B) (1) Defendant enriched, (2) Plaintiff impoverished, (3) No justifiable cause, (4) Causal
link.
C) (1) Defendant enriched, (2) Plaintiff impoverished, (3) Enrichment must be
