lOMoAR cPSD| 24668432
LPL4802 EXAM
PACK 2024
QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE ANSWERS
[DATE]
[Company address]
, lOMoAR cPSD| 24668432
LPL4802 EXAM PACK 2024
Which one of the following statements cannot be regarded as a general requirement for
enrichment liability?
1. The plaintiff must have been impoverished. (requirement)
2. The enrichment must have taken place without a justifiable cause. (requirement)
3. The enrichment must have taken place unlawfully. (not a requirement)
4. The defendant must have been enriched. (requirement)
5. The plaintiff is only entitled to the lesser of his impoverishment and the enrichment of the
defendant. (requirement)
S has concluded a contract with P for the sale of his horse, Big Boy, at a price of R50 000. P
immediately paid the purchase price to S. Unknown to both parties at the time of the conclusion
of the contract, Big Boy had died the day before the conclusion of the contract when he was
kicked by another horse. S immediately used the purchase price to buy a new young foal for R15
000, to pay his workers’ weekly wages of R8 000, to pay his overdraft of R10 000 and to pay for
a luxury weekend away of R12 000. There remains R5 000 of the money in his savings account
with the bank. This contract of sale is, however, void due to initial impossibility.
Which statement best explains the basis of P’s claim against S?
1. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on
the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. no
2. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on
the condictio causa data causa non secuta. no
3. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on
the condictio sine causa specialis. no
4. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on
the condictio indebiti.
5. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the
actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis. no
Assume the same facts as in Question 2. Indicate which statement best explains the extent
of P’s enrichment claim:
1. P has an enrichment claim for the full R50 000 paid. no
2. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in the savings account, the
R 15,000 paid for the foal and the weekly wages paid of R8 000. no
3. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in S’s savings account. no
4. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in the savings account and the R15
000 paid for the foal. no
, lOMoAR cPSD| 24668432
5. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in the savings account, the R15 000
paid for the foal, the weekly wages paid of R8 000 and the R10 000 paid on the
overdraft.
Indicate which one of the following is not a correct statement in respect of the condictio
ob turpem vel iniustam causam:
1. A party who acted with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the contract can never
have an enrichment claim against the other party. Not correct statement
2. Performance by the plaintiff must have taken place as a result of an unlawful agreement.
Correct statement
3. The plaintiff must offer to return any performance received when lodging this enrichment
action. Correct statement
4. The court has an equitable discretion to “do justice between man and man” when dealing
with claims based on this enrichment action. Correct statement
5. 1 and 4 are both wrong. No
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis be
used?
1. As a general enrichment action. no
2. Where property is transferred on the grounds of a valid cause which later falls away. yes
3. Where a contract is terminated due to a resolutive condition. no
4. Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement. no
5. Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error. No
Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of another's property?
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of
another person. incorrect
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who unlawfully occupies the immovable property
of another person as if he is the owner thereof. incorrect
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another person
as if he is the owner thereof. correct
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of
another person as if he is the owner thereof. incorrect
, lOMoAR cPSD| 24668432
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of
another person temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee.
Incorrect
(A bona or mala fide occupier is always unlawfully in occupation. Answers 1 and 3 are accordingly
incorrect. Occupiers know that they are not the owners of the immovable property and only occupies
temporarily. A possessor occupies as it he or she is the owner of the property)
In which of the following case/s did the court rule that there should no longer be a distinction
between error of fact and error of law for purposes of condictio indebiti?
1. Rooth v The State 1888 2 SAR 259
2. Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A)
3. Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 (3) SA 283 (A)
4. CIR v First National Industrial Bank Ltd 1900 (3) SA 641 (A)
5. Le Riche v Hamman 1946 AD 648.
B has bought an operating business from S for R1.5 million. After B had taken over the running
of the business, X, a major supplier to the business, refuses to supply B with any product until S
has settled a debt owed to X for goods delivered in an amount of R50 000. B pays S’s debt with
X because he cannot operate the business without the product supplied by X. S refuses to repay
the amount to B.
Indicate which statement best explains which enrichment action, if any, is available to B
against X:
1. B has no claim against X in terms of any enrichment action.
2. B has a claim against X based on the condictio indebiti.
3. B has a claim against X based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
4. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis (extended
management of affairs action).
5. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria (true
management of affairs action).
Answer: B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional contract. B also does not
have the intention to manage X’s affairs. B is paying a debt owed to X and therefore B has no
enrichment claim against X.
Assume the same facts as in the above. Indicate which statement best explains which
enrichment action, if any, is available to B against S.
1. B has a claim against S based on the condictio indebiti.
LPL4802 EXAM
PACK 2024
QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE ANSWERS
[DATE]
[Company address]
, lOMoAR cPSD| 24668432
LPL4802 EXAM PACK 2024
Which one of the following statements cannot be regarded as a general requirement for
enrichment liability?
1. The plaintiff must have been impoverished. (requirement)
2. The enrichment must have taken place without a justifiable cause. (requirement)
3. The enrichment must have taken place unlawfully. (not a requirement)
4. The defendant must have been enriched. (requirement)
5. The plaintiff is only entitled to the lesser of his impoverishment and the enrichment of the
defendant. (requirement)
S has concluded a contract with P for the sale of his horse, Big Boy, at a price of R50 000. P
immediately paid the purchase price to S. Unknown to both parties at the time of the conclusion
of the contract, Big Boy had died the day before the conclusion of the contract when he was
kicked by another horse. S immediately used the purchase price to buy a new young foal for R15
000, to pay his workers’ weekly wages of R8 000, to pay his overdraft of R10 000 and to pay for
a luxury weekend away of R12 000. There remains R5 000 of the money in his savings account
with the bank. This contract of sale is, however, void due to initial impossibility.
Which statement best explains the basis of P’s claim against S?
1. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on
the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. no
2. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on
the condictio causa data causa non secuta. no
3. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on
the condictio sine causa specialis. no
4. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on
the condictio indebiti.
5. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the
actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis. no
Assume the same facts as in Question 2. Indicate which statement best explains the extent
of P’s enrichment claim:
1. P has an enrichment claim for the full R50 000 paid. no
2. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in the savings account, the
R 15,000 paid for the foal and the weekly wages paid of R8 000. no
3. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in S’s savings account. no
4. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in the savings account and the R15
000 paid for the foal. no
, lOMoAR cPSD| 24668432
5. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5 000 left in the savings account, the R15 000
paid for the foal, the weekly wages paid of R8 000 and the R10 000 paid on the
overdraft.
Indicate which one of the following is not a correct statement in respect of the condictio
ob turpem vel iniustam causam:
1. A party who acted with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the contract can never
have an enrichment claim against the other party. Not correct statement
2. Performance by the plaintiff must have taken place as a result of an unlawful agreement.
Correct statement
3. The plaintiff must offer to return any performance received when lodging this enrichment
action. Correct statement
4. The court has an equitable discretion to “do justice between man and man” when dealing
with claims based on this enrichment action. Correct statement
5. 1 and 4 are both wrong. No
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis be
used?
1. As a general enrichment action. no
2. Where property is transferred on the grounds of a valid cause which later falls away. yes
3. Where a contract is terminated due to a resolutive condition. no
4. Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement. no
5. Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error. No
Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of another's property?
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of
another person. incorrect
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who unlawfully occupies the immovable property
of another person as if he is the owner thereof. incorrect
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another person
as if he is the owner thereof. correct
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of
another person as if he is the owner thereof. incorrect
, lOMoAR cPSD| 24668432
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of
another person temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee.
Incorrect
(A bona or mala fide occupier is always unlawfully in occupation. Answers 1 and 3 are accordingly
incorrect. Occupiers know that they are not the owners of the immovable property and only occupies
temporarily. A possessor occupies as it he or she is the owner of the property)
In which of the following case/s did the court rule that there should no longer be a distinction
between error of fact and error of law for purposes of condictio indebiti?
1. Rooth v The State 1888 2 SAR 259
2. Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A)
3. Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 (3) SA 283 (A)
4. CIR v First National Industrial Bank Ltd 1900 (3) SA 641 (A)
5. Le Riche v Hamman 1946 AD 648.
B has bought an operating business from S for R1.5 million. After B had taken over the running
of the business, X, a major supplier to the business, refuses to supply B with any product until S
has settled a debt owed to X for goods delivered in an amount of R50 000. B pays S’s debt with
X because he cannot operate the business without the product supplied by X. S refuses to repay
the amount to B.
Indicate which statement best explains which enrichment action, if any, is available to B
against X:
1. B has no claim against X in terms of any enrichment action.
2. B has a claim against X based on the condictio indebiti.
3. B has a claim against X based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
4. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis (extended
management of affairs action).
5. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria (true
management of affairs action).
Answer: B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional contract. B also does not
have the intention to manage X’s affairs. B is paying a debt owed to X and therefore B has no
enrichment claim against X.
Assume the same facts as in the above. Indicate which statement best explains which
enrichment action, if any, is available to B against S.
1. B has a claim against S based on the condictio indebiti.
