PVL3704
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 20 March 2026
This document includes:
Helpful answers and guidelines
Detailed explanations and/ or calculations
References
Connect with the tutor on
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
The general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the
expense of the plaintiff means that there must be a causal link between the
enrichment of the defendant and the impoverishment of the plaintiff. It is not
sufficient that the defendant is enriched and the plaintiff is impoverished
independently. The law of unjustified enrichment requires that the one must have
occurred because of the other, otherwise no enrichment liability can arise. In most
cases this causal connection is clear, but difficulties arise where enrichment is
indirect.1
Indirect enrichment occurs where the plaintiff renders performance to one person,
but the benefit of that performance accrues to another. In such cases, the question is
whether the ultimate beneficiary was enriched at the expense of the plaintiff or at the
expense of an intermediary.2 De Vos argues that the enrichment must be assessed
strictly and that, where an intermediary exists, the enrichment is at the expense of
that intermediary and not the original performer. According to him, the poverty or
insolvency of the intermediary cannot alter the juridical relationship between the
plaintiff and the enriched party.3
1
J C Sonnekus Unjustified Enrichment in South African Law (2012) 45.
2
D Visser Unjustified Enrichment (2008) 312.
3
De Vos Verrykingsaanspreeklikheid in die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg (1987) 98.
© Study Shack 2026. All rights Reserved +27 81 278 3372
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 20 March 2026
This document includes:
Helpful answers and guidelines
Detailed explanations and/ or calculations
References
Connect with the tutor on
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
The general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at the
expense of the plaintiff means that there must be a causal link between the
enrichment of the defendant and the impoverishment of the plaintiff. It is not
sufficient that the defendant is enriched and the plaintiff is impoverished
independently. The law of unjustified enrichment requires that the one must have
occurred because of the other, otherwise no enrichment liability can arise. In most
cases this causal connection is clear, but difficulties arise where enrichment is
indirect.1
Indirect enrichment occurs where the plaintiff renders performance to one person,
but the benefit of that performance accrues to another. In such cases, the question is
whether the ultimate beneficiary was enriched at the expense of the plaintiff or at the
expense of an intermediary.2 De Vos argues that the enrichment must be assessed
strictly and that, where an intermediary exists, the enrichment is at the expense of
that intermediary and not the original performer. According to him, the poverty or
insolvency of the intermediary cannot alter the juridical relationship between the
plaintiff and the enriched party.3
1
J C Sonnekus Unjustified Enrichment in South African Law (2012) 45.
2
D Visser Unjustified Enrichment (2008) 312.
3
De Vos Verrykingsaanspreeklikheid in die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg (1987) 98.
© Study Shack 2026. All rights Reserved +27 81 278 3372
