PVL3704
NOTES
,PVL3704 NOTES:
Enrichment liability REQUIRMENTS:
Introduction
Undue enrichment forms part of the Law of obligations whichincludes:
- Contract
- Delict
- Family relationships
- Statute
- Management of affairs
- Blood relationships
General requirements for enrichment liability:
Requirements:
1. The defendant must be enriched
2. The plaintiff must be impoverished
3. The defendants enrichment must have been at the expense ofthe
plaintiff
4. The defendant’s enrichment must have been sine causa.
Requirement 1: The defendant must be enriched:
Enrichment can include:
An increase of the defendants assets which wouldn’t have occurred
without the enrichment
A non-decrease in his assets where a decrease would have taken place if it
wasn’t for the enrichment
Nortje:
Facts: the plaintiffs, who were prospectors, through their own efforts
discovered porcelain clay on the defendant’s farm
Q: whether the discovery of the clay had enhanced the value of the farm?
Held: judge had the view that it wasn’t the discovery of the clay, but its presence,
which determined the value of the farm = the defendant hadn’t been enriched by
the prospector’s efforts.
UNISA: it’s not the presence of the mineral which enhances the land but the
knowledge of their presence – and when someone makes the knowledge
available = an increase in the market value of the property follows.
,Question: whether a person’s estate can be enriched by moral benefits?
Tanne v Foggit:
It was held that a minor who had contracted to get typewriting lessons couldn’t be held
liable in terms of the contract for the price of the lessons but could only be liable for
benefits actually received.
Therefore the action against him is based on enrichment = moral benefits could
amount to enrichment.
UNISA: enrichment amounts to an increased estate and moral benefits
cant increase an estate and therefore don’t amount to enrichment
(Edelstein)
Requirement 2: The plaintiff must be impoverished:
The amount of money that the plaintiff can claim is determined by comparing
the:
Amount by which he has been impoverished or the amount by which
the defendant has been enriched, whichever is thelesser.
All favorable and detrimental side effects of the enriching event are
taken into account in determining the defendant’s enrichment and the
plaintiff’s impoverishment
Requirement 3: The defendant’s enrichment must have been atthe
expense of the plaintiff:
There must be a causal link between the enrichment and the
impoverishment.
Gouws v Jester Pools:
Facts: A had built a pool for B in terms of the contract between them; hebuilt it on
land he believed belonged to B, BUT was in fact the property of C.
After B disappeared without paying A for the pool, A brought an
enrichment action against C.
Held: the action failed, it was held that C had been enriched at B’sexpense
and not A’s (De Vos agrees).
Van der Walt – is of the view that C was enriched at the expense of Aand that
A’s action should have succeeded – he looks at the 'at the expense of”
requirement – this is satisfied as soon as there was a transfer of assets from A’s
estate to C’s .
Buzzard Electrical:
The court distinguished between 2 situations:
1) Where A effects improvements to the property of the owner (with no
, contract with the owner, but with a contract between A and B) and Athen sues
for enrichment (Gouws).
2) Where the owner contracts with B for improvements to his property, B
subcontracts the job to A and once he has completed the work A sues the owner
on the basis on enrichment liability (Buzzard).
Right of retention:
In circumstances where one person has used his money, materials or labour on
preserving or improving another’s property and at his own expense has enriched
that other person = can have a right to keep possession of the property until he is
compensated = enrichment lien.
Brooklyn House Furnishers v Knoetze:
AD allowed an enrichment lien
Facts: B bought furniture from C on hire purchase – in terms of the contract C
reserved ownership until the final installment had been paid. The contract
prohibited B from storing the furniture with anyone but C. B in breach of this
entered into a storage contract with A.
When C later cancelled the contract, he brought the rei vindicatio against A to get
the furniture.
A contended that he had a lien over the furniture until he had been paid for the
storage.
Requirement 4: The enrichment must have been sine causa:
The enrichment must have been unjustified.
Van der Walt: Enrichment is unjustified if there is no obligation inexistence between
the enriched person and the impoverished person
De Vos: enrichment is unjustified where there is no sufficient legal ground for
the transfer of value from one estate to the other
Buzzard Electrical:
Facts: the owner contracted with a developer to make certain improvements to
his property. The developer had subcontracted part ofthe work.
After the sub-contractor completed the work, the developer was
sequestrated.
The sub-contractor instituted action against the owner for unjust
enrichment
Held: AD decided that the owner just got what he contracted for with thedeveloper
– the enrichment of the owner was unjustified.
The sub-contractor could enforce his contractual rights against the developer
NOTES
,PVL3704 NOTES:
Enrichment liability REQUIRMENTS:
Introduction
Undue enrichment forms part of the Law of obligations whichincludes:
- Contract
- Delict
- Family relationships
- Statute
- Management of affairs
- Blood relationships
General requirements for enrichment liability:
Requirements:
1. The defendant must be enriched
2. The plaintiff must be impoverished
3. The defendants enrichment must have been at the expense ofthe
plaintiff
4. The defendant’s enrichment must have been sine causa.
Requirement 1: The defendant must be enriched:
Enrichment can include:
An increase of the defendants assets which wouldn’t have occurred
without the enrichment
A non-decrease in his assets where a decrease would have taken place if it
wasn’t for the enrichment
Nortje:
Facts: the plaintiffs, who were prospectors, through their own efforts
discovered porcelain clay on the defendant’s farm
Q: whether the discovery of the clay had enhanced the value of the farm?
Held: judge had the view that it wasn’t the discovery of the clay, but its presence,
which determined the value of the farm = the defendant hadn’t been enriched by
the prospector’s efforts.
UNISA: it’s not the presence of the mineral which enhances the land but the
knowledge of their presence – and when someone makes the knowledge
available = an increase in the market value of the property follows.
,Question: whether a person’s estate can be enriched by moral benefits?
Tanne v Foggit:
It was held that a minor who had contracted to get typewriting lessons couldn’t be held
liable in terms of the contract for the price of the lessons but could only be liable for
benefits actually received.
Therefore the action against him is based on enrichment = moral benefits could
amount to enrichment.
UNISA: enrichment amounts to an increased estate and moral benefits
cant increase an estate and therefore don’t amount to enrichment
(Edelstein)
Requirement 2: The plaintiff must be impoverished:
The amount of money that the plaintiff can claim is determined by comparing
the:
Amount by which he has been impoverished or the amount by which
the defendant has been enriched, whichever is thelesser.
All favorable and detrimental side effects of the enriching event are
taken into account in determining the defendant’s enrichment and the
plaintiff’s impoverishment
Requirement 3: The defendant’s enrichment must have been atthe
expense of the plaintiff:
There must be a causal link between the enrichment and the
impoverishment.
Gouws v Jester Pools:
Facts: A had built a pool for B in terms of the contract between them; hebuilt it on
land he believed belonged to B, BUT was in fact the property of C.
After B disappeared without paying A for the pool, A brought an
enrichment action against C.
Held: the action failed, it was held that C had been enriched at B’sexpense
and not A’s (De Vos agrees).
Van der Walt – is of the view that C was enriched at the expense of Aand that
A’s action should have succeeded – he looks at the 'at the expense of”
requirement – this is satisfied as soon as there was a transfer of assets from A’s
estate to C’s .
Buzzard Electrical:
The court distinguished between 2 situations:
1) Where A effects improvements to the property of the owner (with no
, contract with the owner, but with a contract between A and B) and Athen sues
for enrichment (Gouws).
2) Where the owner contracts with B for improvements to his property, B
subcontracts the job to A and once he has completed the work A sues the owner
on the basis on enrichment liability (Buzzard).
Right of retention:
In circumstances where one person has used his money, materials or labour on
preserving or improving another’s property and at his own expense has enriched
that other person = can have a right to keep possession of the property until he is
compensated = enrichment lien.
Brooklyn House Furnishers v Knoetze:
AD allowed an enrichment lien
Facts: B bought furniture from C on hire purchase – in terms of the contract C
reserved ownership until the final installment had been paid. The contract
prohibited B from storing the furniture with anyone but C. B in breach of this
entered into a storage contract with A.
When C later cancelled the contract, he brought the rei vindicatio against A to get
the furniture.
A contended that he had a lien over the furniture until he had been paid for the
storage.
Requirement 4: The enrichment must have been sine causa:
The enrichment must have been unjustified.
Van der Walt: Enrichment is unjustified if there is no obligation inexistence between
the enriched person and the impoverished person
De Vos: enrichment is unjustified where there is no sufficient legal ground for
the transfer of value from one estate to the other
Buzzard Electrical:
Facts: the owner contracted with a developer to make certain improvements to
his property. The developer had subcontracted part ofthe work.
After the sub-contractor completed the work, the developer was
sequestrated.
The sub-contractor instituted action against the owner for unjust
enrichment
Held: AD decided that the owner just got what he contracted for with thedeveloper
– the enrichment of the owner was unjustified.
The sub-contractor could enforce his contractual rights against the developer
