LPL4802
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2024
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 2024
, lOMoARcPSD|21997160
QUESTION 1:
1(a) In Transnet Ltd v Sechaba Photoscan (Pty) Ltd (2005) (1) SA 299 SCA, the Court
expressed the view that: “it is now beyond question that damages in delict (and
contract) are assessed according to the comparative method “@ [15]
The statement refers to the current legal stance regarding the assessment of damages in
civil litigation. It states that damages should be evaluated based on a comparison of the
plaintiff's financial situation before and after the harmful event. This principle is based on
the belief that the damages awarded should be proportionate to the amount of loss
suffered by the plaintiff. The court has determined that damages in contract and delict
cases are determined using the comparative method, as established in the Transnet Ltd.
v. Sechaba Photoscan (Pty) Ltd. (2005) (1) SA 299 SCA decision.1 However, this
approach has recently been questioned in South African law of damages jurisprudence,
particularly considering the sum formula method and the concrete concept of damage.
The comparative method is essential to ensure that the compensation awarded is fair and
equitable and accurately reflects the plaintiff's actual loss.
It is widely acknowledged that one must apply a comparison strategy to evaluate damage.
In Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v. Byleveldt, the court upheld this idea and
declared that patrimonial damage is the difference between the aggrieved party's
patrimonial position before the wrongdoing and following it.2 A comparison of some sort
is necessary for a damages assessment.
The application of the law of damages necessitates an equitable and just approach that
is consistent with the principles of impartiality and fairness. In this regard, the comparative
method provides a flexible and bespoke framework for the quantification of damages.
This approach accommodates the concrete concept of damage, which underscores the
1
Transnet Ltd v Sechaba Photoscan (Pty) Ltd 2005 (1) SA 299 (SCA).
2
Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Byleveldt 1973 (2) SA 146 (A).
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2024
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 2024
, lOMoARcPSD|21997160
QUESTION 1:
1(a) In Transnet Ltd v Sechaba Photoscan (Pty) Ltd (2005) (1) SA 299 SCA, the Court
expressed the view that: “it is now beyond question that damages in delict (and
contract) are assessed according to the comparative method “@ [15]
The statement refers to the current legal stance regarding the assessment of damages in
civil litigation. It states that damages should be evaluated based on a comparison of the
plaintiff's financial situation before and after the harmful event. This principle is based on
the belief that the damages awarded should be proportionate to the amount of loss
suffered by the plaintiff. The court has determined that damages in contract and delict
cases are determined using the comparative method, as established in the Transnet Ltd.
v. Sechaba Photoscan (Pty) Ltd. (2005) (1) SA 299 SCA decision.1 However, this
approach has recently been questioned in South African law of damages jurisprudence,
particularly considering the sum formula method and the concrete concept of damage.
The comparative method is essential to ensure that the compensation awarded is fair and
equitable and accurately reflects the plaintiff's actual loss.
It is widely acknowledged that one must apply a comparison strategy to evaluate damage.
In Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v. Byleveldt, the court upheld this idea and
declared that patrimonial damage is the difference between the aggrieved party's
patrimonial position before the wrongdoing and following it.2 A comparison of some sort
is necessary for a damages assessment.
The application of the law of damages necessitates an equitable and just approach that
is consistent with the principles of impartiality and fairness. In this regard, the comparative
method provides a flexible and bespoke framework for the quantification of damages.
This approach accommodates the concrete concept of damage, which underscores the
1
Transnet Ltd v Sechaba Photoscan (Pty) Ltd 2005 (1) SA 299 (SCA).
2
Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Byleveldt 1973 (2) SA 146 (A).
