PVL3704 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2026 - DUE 17 August 2026 ;100% trusted
,comprehensive and complete reliable solution with
clear explanation.
PVL3704 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2026 Law of
Enrichment Liability and Estoppel Due 17 August 2026
QUESTION 1
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,
the money was confiscated by the police during a raid of A's house. Advise B on
the availability of an enrichment action to reclaim the R100,000. Refer to relevant
case law.
Answer
B may have a claim based on the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam (the
condictio for an illegal or immoral cause), but this claim is subject to the *par
delictum* rule, which generally prevents a party from reclaiming what was paid in
an illegal transaction.
1
, 1. Nature of the Transaction
The agreement between A and B involves the sale of uncut diamonds in
contravention of statutory law. This renders the agreement illegal (contra legem).
An illegal contract is void and unenforceable. In principle, money paid under an
illegal contract cannot be reclaimed because the law will not assist a party who has
participated in an illegal act. The maxim *ex turpi causa non oritur actio* (no
action arises from a base cause) applies.
2. The Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causam
The *condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam* is the enrichment action available
to reclaim money paid or property transferred for an illegal or immoral purpose. It
requires that the transfer was made *sine causa* (without a legal ground) because
the underlying agreement is void due to illegality.
3. The Par Delictum Rule
The *condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam* is restricted by the par delictum
rule: where both parties are equally at fault (*in pari delicto*), the possessor is in
2
Semester 2 2026 - DUE 17 August 2026 ;100% trusted
,comprehensive and complete reliable solution with
clear explanation.
PVL3704 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2026 Law of
Enrichment Liability and Estoppel Due 17 August 2026
QUESTION 1
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,
the money was confiscated by the police during a raid of A's house. Advise B on
the availability of an enrichment action to reclaim the R100,000. Refer to relevant
case law.
Answer
B may have a claim based on the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam (the
condictio for an illegal or immoral cause), but this claim is subject to the *par
delictum* rule, which generally prevents a party from reclaiming what was paid in
an illegal transaction.
1
, 1. Nature of the Transaction
The agreement between A and B involves the sale of uncut diamonds in
contravention of statutory law. This renders the agreement illegal (contra legem).
An illegal contract is void and unenforceable. In principle, money paid under an
illegal contract cannot be reclaimed because the law will not assist a party who has
participated in an illegal act. The maxim *ex turpi causa non oritur actio* (no
action arises from a base cause) applies.
2. The Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causam
The *condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam* is the enrichment action available
to reclaim money paid or property transferred for an illegal or immoral purpose. It
requires that the transfer was made *sine causa* (without a legal ground) because
the underlying agreement is void due to illegality.
3. The Par Delictum Rule
The *condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam* is restricted by the par delictum
rule: where both parties are equally at fault (*in pari delicto*), the possessor is in
2
