PVL3704
ASSIGNMENT 1
DUE DATE: 20 MARCH 2026
, PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 MEMO 2026
DUE 20 MARCH 2026
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.
One of the essential requirements for liability.
It is based on unjustified enrichment is that the defendant’s enrichment must have
occurred at the expense of the plaintiff. This requirement ensures that enrichment
liability is only imposed where there is a direct and sufficient link between the benefit
received by the defendant and the loss suffered by the plaintiff. It is not enough that the
defendant is enriched and the plaintiff impoverished; the enrichment must be causally
connected to the plaintiff’s impoverishment. This requirement becomes particularly
important in cases of indirect enrichment, where more than two parties are involved.
Meaning of “at the expense of the plaintiff”
The requirement that enrichment must be “at the expense of” the plaintiff means that
there must be a causal relationship between the enrichment of the defendant and the
impoverishment of the plaintiff.¹ In most cases, this requirement is easily satisfied where
there has been a direct transfer of value, such as money or property, from the plaintiff to
the defendant. In such cases, the plaintiff’s estate decreases while the defendant’s
estate increases as a result of the same transaction.
¹ De Vos Verrykingsaanspreeklikheid; also Sieg Eiselen & Gerrit Pienaar Unjustified Enrichment: A Casebook (4ed).
ASSIGNMENT 1
DUE DATE: 20 MARCH 2026
, PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 MEMO 2026
DUE 20 MARCH 2026
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.
One of the essential requirements for liability.
It is based on unjustified enrichment is that the defendant’s enrichment must have
occurred at the expense of the plaintiff. This requirement ensures that enrichment
liability is only imposed where there is a direct and sufficient link between the benefit
received by the defendant and the loss suffered by the plaintiff. It is not enough that the
defendant is enriched and the plaintiff impoverished; the enrichment must be causally
connected to the plaintiff’s impoverishment. This requirement becomes particularly
important in cases of indirect enrichment, where more than two parties are involved.
Meaning of “at the expense of the plaintiff”
The requirement that enrichment must be “at the expense of” the plaintiff means that
there must be a causal relationship between the enrichment of the defendant and the
impoverishment of the plaintiff.¹ In most cases, this requirement is easily satisfied where
there has been a direct transfer of value, such as money or property, from the plaintiff to
the defendant. In such cases, the plaintiff’s estate decreases while the defendant’s
estate increases as a result of the same transaction.
¹ De Vos Verrykingsaanspreeklikheid; also Sieg Eiselen & Gerrit Pienaar Unjustified Enrichment: A Casebook (4ed).
