PVL3704
Unique code:
Student number: 60967145
Question 1
Discuss the general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the expense of the
plaintiff. Refer in your answer to case law. (15) Question 2
A has sold uncut diamonds to B for an amount of R10 000,000 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 at A’s house. Advise B on the availability of an enrichment action to reclaim the R10
000,000. Refer in your answer to case law.
Question 1
In terms of enrichment at the expense of the plaintiff, it is not enough for the defendant to have been
enriched whilst the plaintiff has been impoverished. In order for the defendant to be liable for
enrichment, the enrichment of the defendant must have been at the expense of the plaintiff. There
needs to be a causal link between the impoverishment and the enrichment in question. This
requirement was developed due to problems that have come into existence regarding indirect
, enrichment, for example, if C contracts with D for the repair of D’s car. C repairs a car he believed to
belong to D that that turns out to be E’s car. The benefit of C’s performance thus accrues to E.
An example that was discussed:
A enters into a contract with B to paint the outside of B’s house. A painted the outside of C’s house
believing it was B’s home.
C will be enriched at the expense of B, regardless if B has made payment to A or not (and he is in the
financial position to pay A). A will also be capable of enforcing his/her contractual action against B. The
question that accompanies this scenario is if it would make a difference if B disappears or is unable to
pay A, would there be an option to bring an enrichment action against C?
De Vos explains that A will not be able to institute an enrichment action against C as C is enriched at the
expense of B – not A. A and C’s juridical relationship will not be affected.
Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T) upheld De Vos’s view - the precedent stated that in
the scenario where A contracts with another person and someone else’s property is renovated without
the owner’s authorization, it is that A who is impoverished and not the owner of the property as the
renovations were not agreed upon. The contract exists between A and B.
Scholtens, Van der Walt and Van Zyl disagree with De Vos’s view as they believe that A should have
succeeded with an action against B as the at-the-expense-of requirement was met as the assets were
directly transferred from A’s estate to C’s – they believe that C was enriched at the expense of A.
An example that was used: B enters into a contract with C where B has to build a pool at C’s home. C
and B contact A to perform using their own work materials. Once A has performed the work by building
the pool, C becomes the owner by accessio as the materials pass from A’s ownership into C’s ownership,
thus and the “expense of” requirement is met – as per Van der Walt’s perspective. According to Van der
Walt, A would be able to succeed in an enrichment action against C if he was not able to be paid by B. If
B had purchased the materials from A to build the pool, C would become the owner of said materials
through accessio but the materials passed from A to B and not A to C so the “at the expense of”
requirement was not met.
This issue was addressed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments by the Appellate
Division court that pointed out two distinctions in the case:
(a) As seen in Gouws v Jester Pools, the situation whre A renovates an owner’s property but does
not have a contract with said owner as they are in a contractual agreement with B sues the
owner of the property for enrichment
(b) The situation where the owner entered a contractual agreement with B to renovate his home
and B then calls BA to do the job. When the work is done by A, A then sues the owner on the
grounds of enrichment liability even though A does not have a contractual agreement with the
owner of the property.
The Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments case cannot be used to reject or agree with
the decision of the Gouws case because the buzzard case deals with the second situation mentioned
Unique code:
Student number: 60967145
Question 1
Discuss the general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the expense of the
plaintiff. Refer in your answer to case law. (15) Question 2
A has sold uncut diamonds to B for an amount of R10 000,000 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 at A’s house. Advise B on the availability of an enrichment action to reclaim the R10
000,000. Refer in your answer to case law.
Question 1
In terms of enrichment at the expense of the plaintiff, it is not enough for the defendant to have been
enriched whilst the plaintiff has been impoverished. In order for the defendant to be liable for
enrichment, the enrichment of the defendant must have been at the expense of the plaintiff. There
needs to be a causal link between the impoverishment and the enrichment in question. This
requirement was developed due to problems that have come into existence regarding indirect
, enrichment, for example, if C contracts with D for the repair of D’s car. C repairs a car he believed to
belong to D that that turns out to be E’s car. The benefit of C’s performance thus accrues to E.
An example that was discussed:
A enters into a contract with B to paint the outside of B’s house. A painted the outside of C’s house
believing it was B’s home.
C will be enriched at the expense of B, regardless if B has made payment to A or not (and he is in the
financial position to pay A). A will also be capable of enforcing his/her contractual action against B. The
question that accompanies this scenario is if it would make a difference if B disappears or is unable to
pay A, would there be an option to bring an enrichment action against C?
De Vos explains that A will not be able to institute an enrichment action against C as C is enriched at the
expense of B – not A. A and C’s juridical relationship will not be affected.
Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T) upheld De Vos’s view - the precedent stated that in
the scenario where A contracts with another person and someone else’s property is renovated without
the owner’s authorization, it is that A who is impoverished and not the owner of the property as the
renovations were not agreed upon. The contract exists between A and B.
Scholtens, Van der Walt and Van Zyl disagree with De Vos’s view as they believe that A should have
succeeded with an action against B as the at-the-expense-of requirement was met as the assets were
directly transferred from A’s estate to C’s – they believe that C was enriched at the expense of A.
An example that was used: B enters into a contract with C where B has to build a pool at C’s home. C
and B contact A to perform using their own work materials. Once A has performed the work by building
the pool, C becomes the owner by accessio as the materials pass from A’s ownership into C’s ownership,
thus and the “expense of” requirement is met – as per Van der Walt’s perspective. According to Van der
Walt, A would be able to succeed in an enrichment action against C if he was not able to be paid by B. If
B had purchased the materials from A to build the pool, C would become the owner of said materials
through accessio but the materials passed from A to B and not A to C so the “at the expense of”
requirement was not met.
This issue was addressed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments by the Appellate
Division court that pointed out two distinctions in the case:
(a) As seen in Gouws v Jester Pools, the situation whre A renovates an owner’s property but does
not have a contract with said owner as they are in a contractual agreement with B sues the
owner of the property for enrichment
(b) The situation where the owner entered a contractual agreement with B to renovate his home
and B then calls BA to do the job. When the work is done by A, A then sues the owner on the
grounds of enrichment liability even though A does not have a contractual agreement with the
owner of the property.
The Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments case cannot be used to reject or agree with
the decision of the Gouws case because the buzzard case deals with the second situation mentioned
