PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 2021 SUPER SEMESTER SOLUTIONS
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.
ANSWER
It must be noted that a causal link must exist between the enrichment and the
impoverished concerned. This simply means that the defendant’s enrichment must be at
the expense of the plaintiff. In most cases the causal link is simple to ascertain, this is
son in matters of direct enrichment.
Problems arise in certain matters dealing with indirect enrichment which involves
another third party. E.g. A enters into a contract with B to build a swimming pool for B. A
mixed B’s address with C’s address and builds the pool on C’s property. The question to
whether C is enriched at the expense of A is explained in terms of case law.
According to De Vos, in his answer to matters of indirect enrichment, he stated that C
will be enriched at B’s expense and that A would claim from B in terms of the contract
and then B will claim from C using an enrichment action.
The views of De Vos were also supported by Jansen J in the case of Gouws v Jester
Pools. The facts of the case were that A had built a swimming pool for B in terms of a
contract between himself and B, and on land that he believed belonged to B, but which
was, in fact the property of C. After B disappeared from the scene without having paid A
for the building of the pool, A brought an enrichment action against C. The action
concerned failed, with Jansen J holding that C had been enriched at B’s expense, and
not at A’s.
The views of De Vos and the judgment propounded in the Gouw’s case were criticised
by Van der Walt who expressed that the at-the-expense-of requirement is satisfied once
assets have been directly transferred from A’s estate to that of C. This means that the
assets passed directly from A to C; hence an enrichment action should be awarded to A
since C was directly enriched at the expense of C.
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.
ANSWER
It must be noted that a causal link must exist between the enrichment and the
impoverished concerned. This simply means that the defendant’s enrichment must be at
the expense of the plaintiff. In most cases the causal link is simple to ascertain, this is
son in matters of direct enrichment.
Problems arise in certain matters dealing with indirect enrichment which involves
another third party. E.g. A enters into a contract with B to build a swimming pool for B. A
mixed B’s address with C’s address and builds the pool on C’s property. The question to
whether C is enriched at the expense of A is explained in terms of case law.
According to De Vos, in his answer to matters of indirect enrichment, he stated that C
will be enriched at B’s expense and that A would claim from B in terms of the contract
and then B will claim from C using an enrichment action.
The views of De Vos were also supported by Jansen J in the case of Gouws v Jester
Pools. The facts of the case were that A had built a swimming pool for B in terms of a
contract between himself and B, and on land that he believed belonged to B, but which
was, in fact the property of C. After B disappeared from the scene without having paid A
for the building of the pool, A brought an enrichment action against C. The action
concerned failed, with Jansen J holding that C had been enriched at B’s expense, and
not at A’s.
The views of De Vos and the judgment propounded in the Gouw’s case were criticised
by Van der Walt who expressed that the at-the-expense-of requirement is satisfied once
assets have been directly transferred from A’s estate to that of C. This means that the
assets passed directly from A to C; hence an enrichment action should be awarded to A
since C was directly enriched at the expense of C.
