PVL3704
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: 17 April 2025
This document includes:
Helpful answers and guidelines
Detailed explanations and/ or calculations
References
Connect with the tutor on
+27 68 812 0934
,© Study Shack 2024. All rights Reserved +27 68 812 0934
, PVL3704-25-S1 Welcome Message Assessment 2
QUIZ
Started on Monday, 17 March 2025, 7:27 PM
State Finished
Completed on Monday, 17 March 2025, 7:39 PM
Time taken 12 mins 21 secs
Marks 20.00/20.00
Grade 100.00 out of 100.00
Question 1
Correct
Mark 2.00 out of 2.00
A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is owing. B has checked its records and has
paid the amount in the bona fide belief that the amount is owing in terms of their contract. Unbeknown to B, his bookkeeper,
C had already paid the amount a week earlier by way of an electronic funds transfer into the account of A. At the time of
the second payment A's account was overdrawn in the amount of R30,000 and was therefore in credit of R20,000 after the
payment. A has taken R15,000 out of his account to pay his employees their monthly wages. He has also paid R10,000 for a
luxury weekend after realising that his account was in credit.
Which statement regarding the requirements for an enrichment action is correct?
a. A has been enriched at the expense of B.
b. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment.
c. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B.
d. A's enrichment is unlawful because he made a demand for payment at a time that it was not due.
e. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank.
Your answer is correct.
A's enrichment took place at the expense of B because B was the person who in law is regarded as the one who made the
payment, even if C physically made the payment. At the time of the payment, the duty to pay had already been extinguished
– the payment therefore cannot be in terms of the agreement, even if B thought so. The enrichment is not unlawful because
A's conduct was not delictual in nature. The bank made payment in terms of its agreement with B and is therefore entitled to
debit B's account. Accordingly, the bank was not impoverished. Consider whether all of the other requirements for
enrichment liability and the condictio indebiti have been complied with.
The correct answer is:
A has been enriched at the expense of B.
, Question 2
Correct
Mark 2.00 out of 2.00
X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 on the property it is renting from Z in Pretoria.
It can be shown that the value of the property has increased by R20,000 due to the improvement. X has disappeared before
paying Y for the work done. Y now wants to lodge a claim against Z, the owner of the property.
Which statement best explains the ground on which and the amount that Y can claim?
a. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000.
b. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R20,000.
c. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
d. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000.
e. Y has an enrichment claim against X for R 20,000.
Your answer is correct.
This case deals with indirect enrichment. Have another look at the decisions in Gouws v Jester Pools and the Buzzard
Electrical case. In the Gouws case it was decided that Y only had a contractual claim against the lessee, X and no
enrichment action against the owner, Z. In the Buzzard Electrical case this issue was left undecided by the appellate division.
The correct answer is:
Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
Question 3
Correct
Mark 2.00 out of 2.00
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is currently on a hiking trip outside the country
and cannot be reached. G has called out a veterinary doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the
medication. The total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. G is a meddlesome neighbour and H has
previously warned him not to do anything on his farm under any circumstances, but rather to call K, if G should notice any
problem. G did not bother to call K.
Which statement best explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
a. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
b. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
c. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for R12,000.
d. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
e. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail because the bull died.
Your answer is correct.
In this case G cannot rely on the true actio negotiorum gestio because he has acted against the express instructions of his
neighbour. He can only rely on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis, which is a true enrichment action. Because the bull died,
the neighbour is no longer enriched.
The correct answer is:
G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: 17 April 2025
This document includes:
Helpful answers and guidelines
Detailed explanations and/ or calculations
References
Connect with the tutor on
+27 68 812 0934
,© Study Shack 2024. All rights Reserved +27 68 812 0934
, PVL3704-25-S1 Welcome Message Assessment 2
QUIZ
Started on Monday, 17 March 2025, 7:27 PM
State Finished
Completed on Monday, 17 March 2025, 7:39 PM
Time taken 12 mins 21 secs
Marks 20.00/20.00
Grade 100.00 out of 100.00
Question 1
Correct
Mark 2.00 out of 2.00
A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is owing. B has checked its records and has
paid the amount in the bona fide belief that the amount is owing in terms of their contract. Unbeknown to B, his bookkeeper,
C had already paid the amount a week earlier by way of an electronic funds transfer into the account of A. At the time of
the second payment A's account was overdrawn in the amount of R30,000 and was therefore in credit of R20,000 after the
payment. A has taken R15,000 out of his account to pay his employees their monthly wages. He has also paid R10,000 for a
luxury weekend after realising that his account was in credit.
Which statement regarding the requirements for an enrichment action is correct?
a. A has been enriched at the expense of B.
b. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment.
c. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B.
d. A's enrichment is unlawful because he made a demand for payment at a time that it was not due.
e. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank.
Your answer is correct.
A's enrichment took place at the expense of B because B was the person who in law is regarded as the one who made the
payment, even if C physically made the payment. At the time of the payment, the duty to pay had already been extinguished
– the payment therefore cannot be in terms of the agreement, even if B thought so. The enrichment is not unlawful because
A's conduct was not delictual in nature. The bank made payment in terms of its agreement with B and is therefore entitled to
debit B's account. Accordingly, the bank was not impoverished. Consider whether all of the other requirements for
enrichment liability and the condictio indebiti have been complied with.
The correct answer is:
A has been enriched at the expense of B.
, Question 2
Correct
Mark 2.00 out of 2.00
X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 on the property it is renting from Z in Pretoria.
It can be shown that the value of the property has increased by R20,000 due to the improvement. X has disappeared before
paying Y for the work done. Y now wants to lodge a claim against Z, the owner of the property.
Which statement best explains the ground on which and the amount that Y can claim?
a. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000.
b. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R20,000.
c. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
d. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000.
e. Y has an enrichment claim against X for R 20,000.
Your answer is correct.
This case deals with indirect enrichment. Have another look at the decisions in Gouws v Jester Pools and the Buzzard
Electrical case. In the Gouws case it was decided that Y only had a contractual claim against the lessee, X and no
enrichment action against the owner, Z. In the Buzzard Electrical case this issue was left undecided by the appellate division.
The correct answer is:
Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
Question 3
Correct
Mark 2.00 out of 2.00
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is currently on a hiking trip outside the country
and cannot be reached. G has called out a veterinary doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the
medication. The total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. G is a meddlesome neighbour and H has
previously warned him not to do anything on his farm under any circumstances, but rather to call K, if G should notice any
problem. G did not bother to call K.
Which statement best explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
a. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
b. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
c. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for R12,000.
d. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
e. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail because the bull died.
Your answer is correct.
In this case G cannot rely on the true actio negotiorum gestio because he has acted against the express instructions of his
neighbour. He can only rely on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis, which is a true enrichment action. Because the bull died,
the neighbour is no longer enriched.
The correct answer is:
G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
