LLB EXAMPACKS AND TUTORIALS
(WhatsApp Business): 084 591 8661
(F): 086 096 5452 www.llbexampacksandtutorials.co.za
__________________________________________________________________________________
LLB EXAM PACKS AND TUTORIALS
➢ Past paper solutions,
➢ notes,
➢ summaries,
➢ assignment packs &
➢ tuitions
PVL3704
UNDUE ENRICHMENT LIABILITY AND
ESTOPPEL
UNISA
2021
ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 1
DUE DATE:12 MAY 2021 (DATE
EXTENDED)
TOTAL: 25 MARKS
UNIQUE NUMBER: 706118
, Question 1
Discuss the general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at
the expense of the plaintiff. Refer in your answer to case law. (15)
If a defendant is to be held liable for enrichment it is not sufficient that the defendant has been
enriched and that the plaintiff has been impoverished. There must also be a causal link
between the enrichment and the impoverishment and this is expressed by saying that the
defendant’s enrichment must be ‘at the expense of the plaintiff’. Normally this requirement
causes little difficulty since in most cases the causal link is obvious. Problems have, however,
arisen in what DH Van Zyl refers to as cases of ‘‘indirect enrichment’’. These are cases where
A and B enter into a contract in terms of which A renders performance to B but the benefit of
the performance accrues to C.
For example, if A (as the subcontractor) contracts with B to supply the roof of a house which
B is building for C, then if B renders performance (pays for the work) to A, C will then be
enriched at B’s expense and not at A’s. Does it make a difference, then, if B becomes insolvent
and is unable to pay A or if B disappears so that A is unable to enforce the contract against
B? “The expert in anything was once a beginner” 39 De Vos’s view is that the fact that B does
not render performance to A cannot affect the juridical position between A and C and that in
the above example C is enriched at B’s expense and not at A’s, with the result that A cannot
bring an enrichment action against C.
This view was endorsed in Gouws v Jester Pools where A had built a swimming pool for B in
terms of a contract between A and B and on land which A believed belonged to B but the land
did in fact belong to C. After B disappeared without paying A for the pool, A brought an
(WhatsApp Business): 084 591 8661
(F): 086 096 5452 www.llbexampacksandtutorials.co.za
__________________________________________________________________________________
LLB EXAM PACKS AND TUTORIALS
➢ Past paper solutions,
➢ notes,
➢ summaries,
➢ assignment packs &
➢ tuitions
PVL3704
UNDUE ENRICHMENT LIABILITY AND
ESTOPPEL
UNISA
2021
ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 1
DUE DATE:12 MAY 2021 (DATE
EXTENDED)
TOTAL: 25 MARKS
UNIQUE NUMBER: 706118
, Question 1
Discuss the general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at
the expense of the plaintiff. Refer in your answer to case law. (15)
If a defendant is to be held liable for enrichment it is not sufficient that the defendant has been
enriched and that the plaintiff has been impoverished. There must also be a causal link
between the enrichment and the impoverishment and this is expressed by saying that the
defendant’s enrichment must be ‘at the expense of the plaintiff’. Normally this requirement
causes little difficulty since in most cases the causal link is obvious. Problems have, however,
arisen in what DH Van Zyl refers to as cases of ‘‘indirect enrichment’’. These are cases where
A and B enter into a contract in terms of which A renders performance to B but the benefit of
the performance accrues to C.
For example, if A (as the subcontractor) contracts with B to supply the roof of a house which
B is building for C, then if B renders performance (pays for the work) to A, C will then be
enriched at B’s expense and not at A’s. Does it make a difference, then, if B becomes insolvent
and is unable to pay A or if B disappears so that A is unable to enforce the contract against
B? “The expert in anything was once a beginner” 39 De Vos’s view is that the fact that B does
not render performance to A cannot affect the juridical position between A and C and that in
the above example C is enriched at B’s expense and not at A’s, with the result that A cannot
bring an enrichment action against C.
This view was endorsed in Gouws v Jester Pools where A had built a swimming pool for B in
terms of a contract between A and B and on land which A believed belonged to B but the land
did in fact belong to C. After B disappeared without paying A for the pool, A brought an
