PVL3701 ASSIGNMENT 1 MEMO - SEMESTER 1 - 2025 - UNISA - DUE : 23 APRIL 2025 - (FULLY REFERENCED WITH FOOTNOTES- DISTINCTION GUARANTEED)

PVL3701 ASSIGNMENT 1 MEMO - SEMESTER 1 - 2025 - UNISA - DUE : 23 APRIL 2025 - (FULLY REFERENCED WITH FOOTNOTES- DISTINCTION GUARANTEED) No need to study for the PVL3701 module! You can purchase assignment and examination answers from us. We guarantee that you will pass the module with a distinction. Reply to this message privately if you are interested in our services. Question 1 Fully advise Janet on the desirability of choosing this option should she decide to take up this offer. (3) Question 2 Janet discusses the message with her husband, a Unisa alumnus and auditor. He advises her to urgently report the matter, because such practices negatively affect the credibility of all Unisa graduates and students. How should Janet go about doing so? (2) Before you answer questions 3-6 of this assignment, read Study Units 1-4 very carefully. Also, read Petropulos and Another v Dias 2020 (5) SA 63 (SCA). While reading the Study Units and the Petropulos decision, focus on the nature of the different rights that are dealt with in this module, namely personal rights, real rights and limited real rights (Study Unit 2). Keep in mind that ownership is the most complete real right that a person can have with regard to his or her own thing, but the law and the rights of others can limit this right (Study Unit 3). Real rights such as ownership and limited real rights, such as servitudes, should be registered in the Deeds Registry, while personal rights are usually not registered. Ownership can be acquired in different ways, either through original means or through derivative means (Study Units 4 and 5). Certain remedies exist to protect the rights and interests of persons (Study Unit 6). Against this background, consider the following set of facts: Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones owned adjoining properties on a steeply sloped mountainside erf in Gordons Bay, Cape Town. In March 2024, Mr. Smith undertook substantial excavation work on his property to facilitate the construction of a three-level house and a lift shaft. Given the extent of the excavation, a retaining wall was built to provide lateral support. Around the same time, another neighbouring property owner, Mr. Brown, conducted minor excavation work to build an additional garage. His construction had little to no impact on the surrounding land’s stability. Later that year, significant ground movement occurred, causing the entire slope beneath Mr. Jones’ property to shift laterally and downward towards Mr. Smith's excavation site. As a result, Mr. Jones’ property suffered extensive structural damage. Mr. Brown’s property was also affected, ultimately leading him to abandon it. Mr. Jones attributed the damage to Mr. Smith’s excavation activities and subsequently instituted a claim for damages, alleging that he had breached his duty to provide lateral support to his property. Against this background answer questions 3 - 6: Question 3 Identify the type of right that Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Brown have with regard to their properties. In your answer also briefly explain how Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Brown should exercise their rights? Question 4 Identify the relevant legal limitation that exists regarding the right of neighbours to develop their land. Explain the nature of this legal limitation. (6) Question 5 Mr. Smith argues that he cannot be held liable for the damage on Mr. Jones’ land, because the legal limitation imposed on him only extends to land in its natural state. With reference to relevant case law, advise whether he is correct. (4) Question 6 If Mr. Smith argues that he was not negligent and had obtained all the necessary approvals before excavating, could he still be held liable for the damage? (5)