PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1
SEMESTER 1 2023
[Document subtitle]
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
The rationale behind the concept of unjust enrichment is that one individual shouldn't be permitted to
profit at the expense of another without a compelling legal justification. One of the conditions for a
plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim against a defendant is that the defendant's enrichment must have
come at the expense of the plaintiff
, Question 1
The rationale behind the concept of unjust enrichment is that one individual shouldn't be
permitted to profit at the expense of another without a compelling legal justification. One
of the conditions for a plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim against a defendant is that the
defendant's enrichment must have come at the expense of the plaintiff.
As a result of the defendant's enrichment, the plaintiff must have experienced some sort
of harm or loss. The plaintiff must demonstrate that there has been a value transfer from
them to the defendant and that this has resulted in the defendant's enlargement, as the
South African courts have highlighted.
According to the court's ruling in the case of ABSA Bank v. Bond Equipment (Pty) Ltd, it
must be proven that there has been a transfer of value from the plaintiff to the defendant
for a claim of unjust enrichment to succeed. The law of unjust enrichment is concerned
with the transfer of property from one person to another, according to the court, which
noted that "enrichment and harm are two sides of the same coin1
In a case similar to this one, Minister of Finance v. Gore, the court determined that in
order for a claim of unjust enrichment to succeed, it must be demonstrated that the
plaintiff has suffered a loss or harm and that the defendant has profited as a result. The
transfer of assets from one person to another without legal explanation is referred to as
"unjust enrichment," according to the court.2
Academic authors' perspectives
The requirement that the defendant's enrichment must have been at the expense of the
plaintiff in a claim for unjust enrichment has been discussed by a number of scholarly
authors in addition to the South African case law.
According to Professor Dale Hutchinson's book, "Unjust Enrichment in South African
Law," the law of unjust enrichment is fundamentally based on the transfer of property,
1 ABSA Bank Ltd. v Bond Equipment (Pretoria) (Pty) Ltd. (580/98) [2000] ZASCA 59; 2001 (1) SA 372
(SCA)
2 Minister of Finance and others v Gore NO 2007 (1) SA 111 (SCA).
SEMESTER 1 2023
[Document subtitle]
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
The rationale behind the concept of unjust enrichment is that one individual shouldn't be permitted to
profit at the expense of another without a compelling legal justification. One of the conditions for a
plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim against a defendant is that the defendant's enrichment must have
come at the expense of the plaintiff
, Question 1
The rationale behind the concept of unjust enrichment is that one individual shouldn't be
permitted to profit at the expense of another without a compelling legal justification. One
of the conditions for a plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim against a defendant is that the
defendant's enrichment must have come at the expense of the plaintiff.
As a result of the defendant's enrichment, the plaintiff must have experienced some sort
of harm or loss. The plaintiff must demonstrate that there has been a value transfer from
them to the defendant and that this has resulted in the defendant's enlargement, as the
South African courts have highlighted.
According to the court's ruling in the case of ABSA Bank v. Bond Equipment (Pty) Ltd, it
must be proven that there has been a transfer of value from the plaintiff to the defendant
for a claim of unjust enrichment to succeed. The law of unjust enrichment is concerned
with the transfer of property from one person to another, according to the court, which
noted that "enrichment and harm are two sides of the same coin1
In a case similar to this one, Minister of Finance v. Gore, the court determined that in
order for a claim of unjust enrichment to succeed, it must be demonstrated that the
plaintiff has suffered a loss or harm and that the defendant has profited as a result. The
transfer of assets from one person to another without legal explanation is referred to as
"unjust enrichment," according to the court.2
Academic authors' perspectives
The requirement that the defendant's enrichment must have been at the expense of the
plaintiff in a claim for unjust enrichment has been discussed by a number of scholarly
authors in addition to the South African case law.
According to Professor Dale Hutchinson's book, "Unjust Enrichment in South African
Law," the law of unjust enrichment is fundamentally based on the transfer of property,
1 ABSA Bank Ltd. v Bond Equipment (Pretoria) (Pty) Ltd. (580/98) [2000] ZASCA 59; 2001 (1) SA 372
(SCA)
2 Minister of Finance and others v Gore NO 2007 (1) SA 111 (SCA).
