Tutorial Letter 201/1/2024 Undue Enrichment and Estoppel
PVL3704
Semester 1
Department of Private Law
This tutorial letter contains important information about your module.
Bar code PVL3704/20
1
3Dear Student,
1COMMENTARY ON THE ASSIGNMENTS
This tutorial letter contains the memorandum, as well as a discussion, of the
answers to the two assignments. Please note that only Question 1 of Assignment 1 was
assessed. If you did not answer Question 1 you will receive 0 for the assignment.
1.1ANSWERS TO ASSIGNMENT 1 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)
Answer
See Study Guide 1 par 2.2.3, page 21ff and par 8.2.2, page 81ff.
(a)Discussion of the causal link requirement and provision of relevant examples. (2)
(b)Discussion of the indirect enrichment problem:
(i)Explanation of the problem. (2)
(ii)Discussion of the view of De Vos (Study Guide 1, page 21). (2)
(iii)Discussion of Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T). (2)
(iv)Discussion of Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A). (2)
(v)Discussion of a right of retention and Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 (3) SA 264 (A). (2)
(vi)Discussion of ABSA Bank Ltd t/a Bankfin v Stander t/a CAW Paneelkloppers
1998 1 SA 929 (C). (3)
(vii)Motivated exposition of your own view. (2)
[max 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.
(10)
PVL3704
Semester 1
Department of Private Law
This tutorial letter contains important information about your module.
Bar code PVL3704/20
1
3Dear Student,
1COMMENTARY ON THE ASSIGNMENTS
This tutorial letter contains the memorandum, as well as a discussion, of the
answers to the two assignments. Please note that only Question 1 of Assignment 1 was
assessed. If you did not answer Question 1 you will receive 0 for the assignment.
1.1ANSWERS TO ASSIGNMENT 1 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)
Answer
See Study Guide 1 par 2.2.3, page 21ff and par 8.2.2, page 81ff.
(a)Discussion of the causal link requirement and provision of relevant examples. (2)
(b)Discussion of the indirect enrichment problem:
(i)Explanation of the problem. (2)
(ii)Discussion of the view of De Vos (Study Guide 1, page 21). (2)
(iii)Discussion of Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T). (2)
(iv)Discussion of Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A). (2)
(v)Discussion of a right of retention and Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 (3) SA 264 (A). (2)
(vi)Discussion of ABSA Bank Ltd t/a Bankfin v Stander t/a CAW Paneelkloppers
1998 1 SA 929 (C). (3)
(vii)Motivated exposition of your own view. (2)
[max 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.
(10)
