PVL3704/20
1
Tutorial Letter 201/1/2024 Unjustified Enrichment and Estoppel
PVL3704
Semester 1
Department of Private Law
This tutorial letter contains important information about your module.
Bar code PVL3704/20
1
1COMMENTARY ON THE ASSIGNMENTS................................................................................ 2
2COMMENTS ON THE EXAMINATION ..................................................................................... 20
Dear Student
1COMMENTARY ON THE ASSIGNMENTS
This tutorial letter contains the memorandum, as well as a discussion, of the
answers to the three assignments. Please note that only question 2 of assignment 1
was marked. If you did not answer question 2 you would have received 0 for the
assignment (refer in this regard to paragraph 7.7.1 of Tutorial Letter 101/3/2020).
1.1ANSWERS TO ASSIGNMENT 1
Question 1
Discuss in general (without reference to a specific enrichment action) how the
extent of enrichment liability (or the quantum of the enrichment claim) will be
calculated.
(10)
Answer
In principle the plaintiff is allowed to claim the amount he has been impoverished,
or the amount by which the defendant has been enriched, whichever is the lesser.
(1) See Study Guide 1, pars
1.1.4and 2.3. The quantum of the enrichment claim is calculated at the time the claim
is instituted. (1) That means that the defendant is not liable for benefits that he due
to his enrichment could have gained, but didn’t. (1) If the defendant’s enrichment
has been reduced or extinguished before the claim has been instituted, his liability
will also be reduced or extinguished. (1) The onus to prove non-enrichment lies with
the defendant. (1) In four instances the quantum will be calculated sooner, meaning
before the date of institution of the action: (a) at the moment the defendant
becomes aware of enrichment (1); (b) at an earlier stage if the defendant should
have known that the benefit wasn’t justified (1); (c) when the defendant fell into
mora (1); and an earlier date if the defendant acted mala fide (1). These exceptions
do not apply in the case of minors. (1)
In quantifying the claim all positive and negative side-effects should be taken into
account. (1) Interest earned on money in the hands of the defendant before litis
contestatio cannot be claimed by the plaintiff, (1) but after mora the plaintiff can claim
mora interest. (1) See Study Guide 1, par 3.4. If the defendant spent the money onCONTENTS PVL3704/20
1 something he would not have done if it wasn’t for the enrichment, he can raise the
defence of non-enrichment. (1) However, if all or part of what he spent the money
on (eg goods) is still of value and in his hands, he must offer the goods or the value
of the goods to the plaintiff. (1) If the goods are more valuable than the
impoverishment, the difference should be paid to the defendant. (1)
1
Tutorial Letter 201/1/2024 Unjustified Enrichment and Estoppel
PVL3704
Semester 1
Department of Private Law
This tutorial letter contains important information about your module.
Bar code PVL3704/20
1
1COMMENTARY ON THE ASSIGNMENTS................................................................................ 2
2COMMENTS ON THE EXAMINATION ..................................................................................... 20
Dear Student
1COMMENTARY ON THE ASSIGNMENTS
This tutorial letter contains the memorandum, as well as a discussion, of the
answers to the three assignments. Please note that only question 2 of assignment 1
was marked. If you did not answer question 2 you would have received 0 for the
assignment (refer in this regard to paragraph 7.7.1 of Tutorial Letter 101/3/2020).
1.1ANSWERS TO ASSIGNMENT 1
Question 1
Discuss in general (without reference to a specific enrichment action) how the
extent of enrichment liability (or the quantum of the enrichment claim) will be
calculated.
(10)
Answer
In principle the plaintiff is allowed to claim the amount he has been impoverished,
or the amount by which the defendant has been enriched, whichever is the lesser.
(1) See Study Guide 1, pars
1.1.4and 2.3. The quantum of the enrichment claim is calculated at the time the claim
is instituted. (1) That means that the defendant is not liable for benefits that he due
to his enrichment could have gained, but didn’t. (1) If the defendant’s enrichment
has been reduced or extinguished before the claim has been instituted, his liability
will also be reduced or extinguished. (1) The onus to prove non-enrichment lies with
the defendant. (1) In four instances the quantum will be calculated sooner, meaning
before the date of institution of the action: (a) at the moment the defendant
becomes aware of enrichment (1); (b) at an earlier stage if the defendant should
have known that the benefit wasn’t justified (1); (c) when the defendant fell into
mora (1); and an earlier date if the defendant acted mala fide (1). These exceptions
do not apply in the case of minors. (1)
In quantifying the claim all positive and negative side-effects should be taken into
account. (1) Interest earned on money in the hands of the defendant before litis
contestatio cannot be claimed by the plaintiff, (1) but after mora the plaintiff can claim
mora interest. (1) See Study Guide 1, par 3.4. If the defendant spent the money onCONTENTS PVL3704/20
1 something he would not have done if it wasn’t for the enrichment, he can raise the
defence of non-enrichment. (1) However, if all or part of what he spent the money
on (eg goods) is still of value and in his hands, he must offer the goods or the value
of the goods to the plaintiff. (1) If the goods are more valuable than the
impoverishment, the difference should be paid to the defendant. (1)
