100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached 4.2 TrustPilot
logo-home
Exam (elaborations)

PVL3704 MAY JUNE 2023

Rating
-
Sold
-
Pages
10
Grade
A+
Uploaded on
25-05-2023
Written in
2022/2023

PVL3704 MAY JUNE 2023.









Whoops! We can’t load your doc right now. Try again or contact support.

Document information

Uploaded on
May 25, 2023
Number of pages
10
Written in
2022/2023
Type
Exam (elaborations)
Contains
Questions & answers

Subjects

Content preview

QUESTION 1
Discuss the causality (at the expense of requirement) requirement of
enrichment liability. (10)


In South African law, the enrichment liability is governed by the principle of
unjustified enrichment, which requires that enrichment of one party at the expense of
another must be remedied. The causality requirement of enrichment liability refers to
the requirement that there must be a causal link between the enrichment of the
defendant and the corresponding loss suffered by the plaintiff.


In order for a plaintiff to succeed in an enrichment claim, they must show that the
enrichment of the defendant was caused by the corresponding loss suffered by the
plaintiff. This means that the plaintiff must prove that there is a direct connection
between the enrichment of the defendant and the corresponding loss suffered by the
plaintiff.


The causality requirement is important because it ensures that the plaintiff is not able
to recover for a loss that was not directly caused by the defendant's enrichment. This
requirement also ensures that the defendant is not held liable for any losses that
were not caused by their enrichment.


Overall, the causality requirement of enrichment liability ensures that there is a fair
and just remedy for situations where one party has gained at the expense of another.
It ensures that plaintiffs are not able to recover for losses that were not directly
caused by the defendant's enrichment and that defendants are not held liable for
losses that were not caused by their enrichment.




QUESTION 2
In McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para
[9] the court said: “We now know from the hard print that there is a common-
law basis for the acceptance of a general enrichment action, at least one of a
subsidiary nature. In this respect the decision of the majority in Nortje’s case




Downloaded by: fortunatechando | Want to earn
Distribution of this document is illegal R13,625 per year?
R100,00
Get access to the full document:

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

Get to know the seller
Seller avatar
GoldenStudent

Get to know the seller

Seller avatar
GoldenStudent University of South Africa (Unisa)
View profile
Follow You need to be logged in order to follow users or courses
Sold
6
Member since
2 year
Number of followers
6
Documents
8
Last sold
1 year ago

0,0

0 reviews

5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0

Recently viewed by you

Why students choose Stuvia

Created by fellow students, verified by reviews

Quality you can trust: written by students who passed their exams and reviewed by others who've used these notes.

Didn't get what you expected? Choose another document

No worries! You can immediately select a different document that better matches what you need.

Pay how you prefer, start learning right away

No subscription, no commitments. Pay the way you're used to via credit card or EFT and download your PDF document instantly.

Student with book image

“Bought, downloaded, and aced it. It really can be that simple.”

Alisha Student

Frequently asked questions