PVL3702 EXAM
PACK 2023
, UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT
Introduction to Unjustified Enrichment
Private law – deals with the legal relationships between private
entities other than the State in its public law capacity
Law of Obligations – concerned with the relationship that exists
between the debtor and creditor (contract, delict and
unjustified enrichment)
Contract – obligations created by agreement
Delict – obligations arise by force of law, upon damage or
personal injury by the commission of an unlawful action
Enrichment – obligations arise in a number of different
situations that are neither related to contract or delict
Historical sources – Roman Law and Roman-Dutch Law,
developed by South African courts, also subject to principles
and influence of the Constitution, although of little influence;
,created in terms of which the person whose estate has been
enriched has a duty to restore that which was received to the
person at whose expense the increase occurred. Impoverished
person – corresponding right to claim that the increase be
restored to him or herself.
A concluded a contract with B for the sale of a stud bull, Spartacus, for R100 000. B paid a
deposit of R10 000 at the time of the signing of the contract. However, unbeknown to both A
and B, Spartacus had died on the day before the conclusion of the contract. Can B reclaim
the deposit paid?
Did you consider the fact that the contract was void owing to its wording? If no contract exists
between the parties, there is no underlying reason, or causa, for the payment of the deposit.
B has been impoverished by the payment of the deposit, and A has been enriched by it. As
the issue pertains to an amount of money that has been paid, B may reclaim the full amount,
unless A can prove that the enrichment has been diminished, or extinguished. A’s enrichment
has been caused by the direct transfer of the money from B, and it has, therefore, occurred
at B’s expense. B should, therefore, be able to claim back the full amount transferred. Transfer
is sine causa.
C concluded a contract with D, in terms of which D was to paint the exterior of C’s house for
R20 000 while C was on holiday. As a result of a mix-up in addresses, D painted the house
belonging to E, who was also on holiday during the period. E’s house also seemed to require a
fresh coat of paint. Can D claim anything in the above regard from either C or E?
This scenario does not deal with a case of indirect enrichment. The painter mistakenly painted
the wrong house. Transfer was sine causa. Did you consider the existence of the contractual
relationships in the given instance, and the relevance thereof in respect of the potential claim?
Was D impoverished in this instance? If so, at whose expense did the impoverishment take
place?
Although a contract exists between C and D, no contract exists between D and E.
Although D thought he was performing his contract with C, because he painted the wrong
house, he did not fulfil his contractual obligations towards C. No contract existed between D
and E, and, consequently, D has no contractual claim against E. D has clearly been
impoverished by the expenditure of his time, labour and materials, but it is uncertain whether
E has, in fact, been enriched.
Did you consider that the house involved might not have risen in value as a result of the
, F is renting a farm from G. F has concluded an agreement with H to repair the fences on the
farm at a cost of R40 000. H has carried out the repairs. In the meantime, F has absconded and
is nowhere to be found. Can H claim anything from G?
This is clearly a case of indirect enrichment. Consider the facts against the principles discussed
in the case law and articles on indirect enrichment, and come to an appropriate conclusion,
stating your own viewpoint on the issue.
Pay particular attention to the decisions made in the Gouws, Buzzard Electrical and McCarthy
cases. Note, also, the differences in the opinions expressed by the various writers: De Vos;
Eiselen and Pienaar; Van der Walt; Scholtens and Van Zyl.
The propositions presented in this scenario are quite similar to those that were presented in the
Gouws case. In your answer, you have to consider the approach taken in the various decided
cases, namely in Gouws, Buzzard Electrical and Hubby’s Investments. However, you have also
to consider the viewpoints of the different writers concerned before formulating a conclusion
of your own. Transfer was sine causa.
I has concluded an agreement with J for the sale of her second-hand car, at a price of R50
000. The market value of the car is only R30 000. Can J claim the difference from I?
Transfer was not sine causa. Did you consider whether there was a valid contract between
the parties concerned?
K has stolen L’s laptop computer from his office and has sold it to M for R2 000. Can L claim
anything from either K or M? What would the basis of the claim be if such were to be the case?
Is this a claim under enrichment law, a claim in delict, or a claim based on property law? Does
L have any rights or claims in property law, such as the actio rei vindicatio, that he or she should
employ rather than an enrichment claim? In scenario 5, no transfer of ownership takes place,
because the goods involved were stolen. The use of the actio rei vindicatio, or of a delictual
claim, would, therefore, be more appropriate in such an instance.
Requirements for the Use of an Enrichment Action:
1) The defendant must be enriched
2) The plaintiff must be impoverished
PACK 2023
, UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT
Introduction to Unjustified Enrichment
Private law – deals with the legal relationships between private
entities other than the State in its public law capacity
Law of Obligations – concerned with the relationship that exists
between the debtor and creditor (contract, delict and
unjustified enrichment)
Contract – obligations created by agreement
Delict – obligations arise by force of law, upon damage or
personal injury by the commission of an unlawful action
Enrichment – obligations arise in a number of different
situations that are neither related to contract or delict
Historical sources – Roman Law and Roman-Dutch Law,
developed by South African courts, also subject to principles
and influence of the Constitution, although of little influence;
,created in terms of which the person whose estate has been
enriched has a duty to restore that which was received to the
person at whose expense the increase occurred. Impoverished
person – corresponding right to claim that the increase be
restored to him or herself.
A concluded a contract with B for the sale of a stud bull, Spartacus, for R100 000. B paid a
deposit of R10 000 at the time of the signing of the contract. However, unbeknown to both A
and B, Spartacus had died on the day before the conclusion of the contract. Can B reclaim
the deposit paid?
Did you consider the fact that the contract was void owing to its wording? If no contract exists
between the parties, there is no underlying reason, or causa, for the payment of the deposit.
B has been impoverished by the payment of the deposit, and A has been enriched by it. As
the issue pertains to an amount of money that has been paid, B may reclaim the full amount,
unless A can prove that the enrichment has been diminished, or extinguished. A’s enrichment
has been caused by the direct transfer of the money from B, and it has, therefore, occurred
at B’s expense. B should, therefore, be able to claim back the full amount transferred. Transfer
is sine causa.
C concluded a contract with D, in terms of which D was to paint the exterior of C’s house for
R20 000 while C was on holiday. As a result of a mix-up in addresses, D painted the house
belonging to E, who was also on holiday during the period. E’s house also seemed to require a
fresh coat of paint. Can D claim anything in the above regard from either C or E?
This scenario does not deal with a case of indirect enrichment. The painter mistakenly painted
the wrong house. Transfer was sine causa. Did you consider the existence of the contractual
relationships in the given instance, and the relevance thereof in respect of the potential claim?
Was D impoverished in this instance? If so, at whose expense did the impoverishment take
place?
Although a contract exists between C and D, no contract exists between D and E.
Although D thought he was performing his contract with C, because he painted the wrong
house, he did not fulfil his contractual obligations towards C. No contract existed between D
and E, and, consequently, D has no contractual claim against E. D has clearly been
impoverished by the expenditure of his time, labour and materials, but it is uncertain whether
E has, in fact, been enriched.
Did you consider that the house involved might not have risen in value as a result of the
, F is renting a farm from G. F has concluded an agreement with H to repair the fences on the
farm at a cost of R40 000. H has carried out the repairs. In the meantime, F has absconded and
is nowhere to be found. Can H claim anything from G?
This is clearly a case of indirect enrichment. Consider the facts against the principles discussed
in the case law and articles on indirect enrichment, and come to an appropriate conclusion,
stating your own viewpoint on the issue.
Pay particular attention to the decisions made in the Gouws, Buzzard Electrical and McCarthy
cases. Note, also, the differences in the opinions expressed by the various writers: De Vos;
Eiselen and Pienaar; Van der Walt; Scholtens and Van Zyl.
The propositions presented in this scenario are quite similar to those that were presented in the
Gouws case. In your answer, you have to consider the approach taken in the various decided
cases, namely in Gouws, Buzzard Electrical and Hubby’s Investments. However, you have also
to consider the viewpoints of the different writers concerned before formulating a conclusion
of your own. Transfer was sine causa.
I has concluded an agreement with J for the sale of her second-hand car, at a price of R50
000. The market value of the car is only R30 000. Can J claim the difference from I?
Transfer was not sine causa. Did you consider whether there was a valid contract between
the parties concerned?
K has stolen L’s laptop computer from his office and has sold it to M for R2 000. Can L claim
anything from either K or M? What would the basis of the claim be if such were to be the case?
Is this a claim under enrichment law, a claim in delict, or a claim based on property law? Does
L have any rights or claims in property law, such as the actio rei vindicatio, that he or she should
employ rather than an enrichment claim? In scenario 5, no transfer of ownership takes place,
because the goods involved were stolen. The use of the actio rei vindicatio, or of a delictual
claim, would, therefore, be more appropriate in such an instance.
Requirements for the Use of an Enrichment Action:
1) The defendant must be enriched
2) The plaintiff must be impoverished
