PVL3704 Assignment 1
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2025 - DUE 13
March 2025
100% GUARANTEED
, PVL3704 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 1 2025 - DUE 13 March
2025
Question 1 Discuss (by reference to relevant case law)
the requirement that the enrichment must have been
sine causa. (10)
The requirement that the enrichment must have been sine causa (without legal
cause) is a fundamental principle in South African unjustified enrichment law. This
principle ensures that one party cannot retain an undue benefit received at the
expense of another if there is no lawful reason justifying the enrichment.
Key Elements of Sine Causa
1. Absence of a Legal Basis
o Enrichment must have occurred without a valid contract, legal
obligation, or lawful justification. If there is a legal cause (such as a
valid contract), the claim for unjustified enrichment will fail.
2. Mistaken Payments (Indebitum)
o A common example of sine causa enrichment is when a party
mistakenly pays money to another, believing that they owe a debt
when, in fact, no debt exists.
Relevant Case Law
1. McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC (2001)
o This case involved the mistaken payment of money by McCarthy
Retail to Shortdistance Carriers. The court held that since the payment
was made in error and there was no legal obligation for the recipient
to retain the funds, the enrichment was sine causa, and restitution had
to be made.
2. Nedbank Ltd v Executrix of the Estate Late Kruger (2021)
o Nedbank mistakenly paid funds into the wrong account. The recipient
refused to return the money, arguing it was lawfully received. The
court ruled that there was no iusta causa (valid reason) for the
retention, and the money had to be repaid.
3. Kelly v Solari (1841)
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2025 - DUE 13
March 2025
100% GUARANTEED
, PVL3704 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 1 2025 - DUE 13 March
2025
Question 1 Discuss (by reference to relevant case law)
the requirement that the enrichment must have been
sine causa. (10)
The requirement that the enrichment must have been sine causa (without legal
cause) is a fundamental principle in South African unjustified enrichment law. This
principle ensures that one party cannot retain an undue benefit received at the
expense of another if there is no lawful reason justifying the enrichment.
Key Elements of Sine Causa
1. Absence of a Legal Basis
o Enrichment must have occurred without a valid contract, legal
obligation, or lawful justification. If there is a legal cause (such as a
valid contract), the claim for unjustified enrichment will fail.
2. Mistaken Payments (Indebitum)
o A common example of sine causa enrichment is when a party
mistakenly pays money to another, believing that they owe a debt
when, in fact, no debt exists.
Relevant Case Law
1. McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC (2001)
o This case involved the mistaken payment of money by McCarthy
Retail to Shortdistance Carriers. The court held that since the payment
was made in error and there was no legal obligation for the recipient
to retain the funds, the enrichment was sine causa, and restitution had
to be made.
2. Nedbank Ltd v Executrix of the Estate Late Kruger (2021)
o Nedbank mistakenly paid funds into the wrong account. The recipient
refused to return the money, arguing it was lawfully received. The
court ruled that there was no iusta causa (valid reason) for the
retention, and the money had to be repaid.
3. Kelly v Solari (1841)
