PVL3704 MCQ – Exam Prep latest Fall 2021 with all the Correct Answers

Question 1 to 3. The following facts are relevant for questions 1 to 3. A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is owing. B has checked its records and has paid the amount in the bona fide belief that the amount is owing in terms of their contract. Unbeknown to B, his bookkeeper, C had already paid the amount a week earlier by way of an electronic funds transfer in to the account of A. At the time of the second payment A's account was overdrawn in the amount of R30,000 and was therefore in credit of R20,000 after the payment. A has taken R15,000 out of his account to pay his employees their monthly wages. He has also paid R10,000 for a luxury weekend after realising that his account was in credit. Answer: These questions deal with the condictio indebiti and its requirements. The claim cannot be delictual because A's misrepresentation was innocently made. The claim can also not be based on the contract, because there had already been payment which extinguished the duty to pay in terms of the contract. Next evaluate the answers against the requirements of the condictio indebiti. Here the one party made a bona fide payment that was not owing and under circumstances that was excusable, partly because the mistake was induced by A's misrepresentation. Question 1 Which statement best explains the nature of the claim against A? 1. B has a claim against A based on delict for a fraudulent misstatement. 2. B has contractual claim against A based on their contract. 3. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio causa data causa non secuta. 4. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio indebiti. 5. B has no claim against A because he paid the amount voluntarily. 6. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis. Question 2 Answer: A's enrichment took place at the expense of B because B was the person who in law is regarded as the person who made the payment, even if C physically made the payment. At the time of the payment, the duty to pay had already been extinguished – the payment therefore cannot be in terms of the agreement, even if B thought so. The enrichment is not unlawful because B's conduct was not delictual in nature. The bank made payment in terms of its agreement with B and is therefore entitled to debit B's account. Accordingly it was not impoverished. Consider whether all of the other requirements for enrichment liability and the condictio indebiti have been complied with.