Estoppel Study guides, Class notes & Summaries

PVL 3704 ENRICHMENT LIABILITY AND ESTOPPEL LATEST EXAM PACK 2021-2022. SECTION B QUESTION 1 DISCUSS THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF ENRICHMENT CLAIMS WITHOUT REFERRING TO ANY SPECIFIC ACTION The plaintiff is allowed to claim the amount he has been impoverished, or the amount the defendant has been enriched, whichever is the lesser. The quantum of the enrichment claim is calculated at the time the claim is instituted. The defendant is not liable for benefits that he due to his enrichment c...

This document contains Latest Study Notes covering all Chapters (Estoppel + Unjustified Enrichment Liability) • Quality exam prep summary and exam memo.

- includes 2 tables of the cases that include key words/important aspects of each case as well as the outcome - case summaries for all the cases - detailed minority and majority judgement (especially required for term 4's section - includes notes on lectures 7, 8 and 9 as well as the rei vindicatio, cash and credit sales and estoppel -includes the summaries of: -Dreyer -McKenna -Quartermark - Groenewald - Oriental Products - Eriksen Motors - FNB -Mkontwana -A...

This document contains workings, explanations and solutions to the MRL2601 Assignment 2 (QUALITY ANSWERS) Semester 1 2024. For assistance call or us on 0.6.8..8.1.2..0.9.3.4........ Question 1 1.1 Lesedi and Simphiwe registered Furnmax (Pty) Ltd, a company that sells office equipment. The Memorandum of Incorporation of Furnmax (Pty) Ltd indicates that the board of directors, consisting of Lesedi, Simphiwe, Carol and Precious, can appoint a managing director who would be authorised to contract o...

MRL2601 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER % TRUSTED workings, explanations and solutions. Question 1 1.1 Lesedi and Simphiwe registered Furnmax (Pty) Ltd, a company that sells office equipment. The Memorandum of Incorporation of Furnmax (Pty) Ltd indicates that the board of directors, consisting of Lesedi, Simphiwe, Carol and Precious, can appoint a managing director who would be authorised to contract on the company’s behalf. However, the board has never formally appointed a managing director. Neverth...

Well-structured MRL2601 Assignment 2 (ANSWERS) Semester 1 2024 (347800) - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED. (DETAILED ANSWERS - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED!). Question 1 1.1 Lesedi and Simphiwe registered Furnmax (Pty) Ltd, a company that sells office equipment. The Memorandum of Incorporation of Furnmax (Pty) Ltd indicates that the board of directors, consisting of Lesedi, Simphiwe, Carol and Precious, can appoint a managing director who would be authorised to contract on the company’s behalf. However, the...

Florida 6-20 All Lines Adjuster Test Question and answers 2023 verified A public adjuster represents the interest of: A. The insurer B. The Insured C. The employer D. The interest of the general public B. The insured Which of the following is the type of report that indicates the initial results of a claim investigation? A. Field Report B. Interim Report C. Full Report D. None of the above A. Field Report States have adopted statutes regarding claims adjusting. To avoid u...

PVL3704 (Enrichment Liability and Estoppel) Assignment 1 (Solutions) Semester 1 2023,Due 6th of April 2023. In accordance with academic guidelines! Comprehensive, informative, well-researched answers provided! 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!

Champions Real Estate Exam Law of Agency solution A+ GUARANTED This person hires an agent - CORRECT ANS - The Principal The agent works on behalf of this person - CORRECT ANS - the client (principal) This type of agency allows for the greatest range of authority - CORRECT ANS - Universal This is provided to the agent when there is written documentation that the agency relationship exists. - CORRECT ANS - Express authority This is the most limited of all the agency relationships...

Contains Latest Summaries of the following Unjustified Enrichment & Estoppel Cases: 1. Nortje v Pool; 2. Gouws v Jester Pools; 3. Gouws v Jester Pools; 4. Brooklyn House Furnishers v Knoetze; 5. Willis Faber Enthoven; 6. CIR v First National International Bank; 7. Govender v Standard Bank of South Africa; 8. CIR v Visser; 9. FNB v B & H Engineering; 10. Leeuw v FNB; 11. Odendaal v Van Oudtshoorn; 12. Thomas v Baumann & Gilfillan; 13. Electrolux (Pty) Ltd v Khota, etc..