PVL3704 Assignment 1
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2025 - DUE 13
March 2025
100% GUARANTEEED
, 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 enrichment must have been sine causa (without legal cause)
is a fundamental element in unjustified enrichment claims. This means that the
enrichment must have occurred without a valid legal reason justifying the transfer
of value from the impoverished party to the enriched party.
1. Meaning of Sine Causa
For an unjustified enrichment claim to succeed, the plaintiff must prove that the
defendant was enriched without a valid legal basis (sine causa). This implies that
there was no contractual, statutory, or other legal obligation justifying the transfer
or retention of the benefit.
2. Case Law Illustrating Sine Causa
Several cases in South African law have examined this principle:
McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA)
In this case, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) considered whether a party
could reclaim a benefit conferred under a void contract.
The court held that where a contract is void from the outset, any enrichment
obtained under it is without legal cause (sine causa), and the enriched party
must return the benefit.
Brooklyn House Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 (3) SA 264 (A)
This case confirmed that if one party mistakenly pays another without a
legal obligation, the recipient is enriched sine causa and must repay the
amount.
The court emphasized that mistaken payments where there is no duty to pay
constitute unjustified enrichment.
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2025 - DUE 13
March 2025
100% GUARANTEEED
, 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 enrichment must have been sine causa (without legal cause)
is a fundamental element in unjustified enrichment claims. This means that the
enrichment must have occurred without a valid legal reason justifying the transfer
of value from the impoverished party to the enriched party.
1. Meaning of Sine Causa
For an unjustified enrichment claim to succeed, the plaintiff must prove that the
defendant was enriched without a valid legal basis (sine causa). This implies that
there was no contractual, statutory, or other legal obligation justifying the transfer
or retention of the benefit.
2. Case Law Illustrating Sine Causa
Several cases in South African law have examined this principle:
McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA)
In this case, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) considered whether a party
could reclaim a benefit conferred under a void contract.
The court held that where a contract is void from the outset, any enrichment
obtained under it is without legal cause (sine causa), and the enriched party
must return the benefit.
Brooklyn House Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 (3) SA 264 (A)
This case confirmed that if one party mistakenly pays another without a
legal obligation, the recipient is enriched sine causa and must repay the
amount.
The court emphasized that mistaken payments where there is no duty to pay
constitute unjustified enrichment.
