LPL4802 Assignment 3 (100% COMPLETE ANSWERS) 2025

Law of Damages - LPL4802 Assessment 3 2025 ;100 % TRUSTED workings, Expert Solved, Explanations and Solutions. For assistance call or W.h.a.t.s.a.p.p us on ...(.+.2.5.4.7.7.9.5.4.0.1.3.2)........... 1. According to Potgieter, Steynberg and Floyd, which one of the following is an incorrect interpretation of section 17 (1) of the Road Accident Fund Act, 1996 (as amended)?  The section represents a statutory enactment of the common law remedies.  The section specifically defines and/or determines the damage-causing event.  The section intends to create a new statutory cause of action.  The section has adopted a wider concept of damage. 2. In Fose v Minister of Safety & Security 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC)...  the Constitutional Court held that punitive damages will always be awarded in defamation cases.  the Constitutional Court approved of a claim for adultery.  the Constitutional Court rejected a delictual claim for damages.  the Constitutional Court rejected a claim for constitutional damages. 3. Which one of the following options correctly describes the principle of the common law rule of in duplum?  It protects the debtor in that if mora interest reaches an amount equal to the capital sum due, it ceases to run.  It is aimed at ‘supplementing’ incomplete or defective performance.  It refers to damages calculated in terms of the positive interesse.  It is seen as compensation assessed with reference to negative interesse on account of breach of contract or misrepresentation inducing a contract. 4. Which one of the following cases sets out the facta probanda for loss of support?  Erasmus v Unieversekeringsadviseurs 1962 (4) SA 646 (T).  Walker v Santam Ltd 2009 (6) SA 224 (SCA).  Harker v Fussell 2002 (1) SA 170 (T).  Evins v Sheild Ins Co Ltd 1980 (2) SA 814 (A). 5. Abstracts from case law dealing with the application or non-application of ‘once and for all’ rule have been provided. Choose the correct case from the drop-down bar.  Cattle died through the spraying of poison, it was inter alia contended that the case should be approached on the basis of subsidence in English law, implying that prescription does not run unless damage occurs. The court rejected the argument, arguing instead that in subsidence cases the cause of