PVL3704-24-S2 Welcome Message Assessment 2
QUIZ
Started on Tuesday, 10 September 2024, 11:59 AM
State Finished
Completed on Tuesday, 10 September 2024, 12:06 PM
Time taken 6 mins 47 secs
Marks 20.00/20.00
Grade 100.00 out of 100.00
Question 1
Correct
Mark 2.00 out of 2.00
A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While travelling in the Northern Cape, the vehicle breaks down. A
contracts with C, a garage in Springbok, to repair the vehicle at a cost of R12,000. After two days A leases another vehicle
from X and completes his trip. He departs for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B.
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim against B and the authority on which it is based?
a. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that C has no claim against B
because B had not been enriched.
b. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that C has no claim
against B because B has not been enriched at C's expense.
c. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4
SA 19 (A)
d. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA
19 (A)
e. The decision in the Gouws case was overruled in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd V Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264
(A)
Your answer is correct.
This set of facts relates to indirect enrichment. Please note that there is a contractual relationship between A and B, as well
as between A and C and eventually also between A and X. Last-mentioned contract is not relevant for this set of facts. Also
take note that there is no contractual relationship between B and C. Look again at the decisions in Gouws v Jester Pools and
the Buzzard Electrical-case.
The correct answer is:
In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that C has no claim against B because
B has not been enriched at C's expense.
QUIZ
Started on Tuesday, 10 September 2024, 11:59 AM
State Finished
Completed on Tuesday, 10 September 2024, 12:06 PM
Time taken 6 mins 47 secs
Marks 20.00/20.00
Grade 100.00 out of 100.00
Question 1
Correct
Mark 2.00 out of 2.00
A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While travelling in the Northern Cape, the vehicle breaks down. A
contracts with C, a garage in Springbok, to repair the vehicle at a cost of R12,000. After two days A leases another vehicle
from X and completes his trip. He departs for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B.
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim against B and the authority on which it is based?
a. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that C has no claim against B
because B had not been enriched.
b. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that C has no claim
against B because B has not been enriched at C's expense.
c. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4
SA 19 (A)
d. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA
19 (A)
e. The decision in the Gouws case was overruled in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd V Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264
(A)
Your answer is correct.
This set of facts relates to indirect enrichment. Please note that there is a contractual relationship between A and B, as well
as between A and C and eventually also between A and X. Last-mentioned contract is not relevant for this set of facts. Also
take note that there is no contractual relationship between B and C. Look again at the decisions in Gouws v Jester Pools and
the Buzzard Electrical-case.
The correct answer is:
In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that C has no claim against B because
B has not been enriched at C's expense.
