QUIZ
Assessment 2
Started onWednesday, 4 March 2026, 10:49 AM
StateFinished
Completed onWednesday, 4 March 2026, 11:17 AM
Time taken27 mins 47 secs
Marks18.00/20.00
Grade90.00 out of 100.00
1
Question
F
q
g
la
n
stio
e
u
Question text
Which of the following is/are (a) prerequisite(s) for a claim
in terms of the condictio indebiti?
a.
The enrichment was unlawful.
b.
The defendant was unjustifiably enriched.
c.
There was a causal link between the enrichment and
impoverishment.
, d.
The mistake must have been excusable.
e.
The defendant was unjustifiably enriched; there was a
causal link between the enrichment and impoverishment,
and the mistake must have been excusable.
Feedback
Your answer is incorrect.
Take note that the general requirements for enrichment
liability must be proven in the case of all enrichment
actions. Unlawfulness is a requirement with regards to
the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam.
The correct answer is:
The defendant was unjustifiably enriched; there was a
causal link between the enrichment and impoverishment,
and the mistake must have been excusable.
2
Question
F
q
g
la
n
stio
e
u
Question text
A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While
travelling in the Northern Cape, the vehicle breaks down.
A contracts with C, a garage in Springbok, to repair the
vehicle at a cost of R12,000. After two days A leases
, another vehicle from X and completes his trip. He departs
for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B.
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim
against B and the authority on which it is based?
a.
In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd
1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that C has no claim against
B because B had not been enriched.
b.
In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd
1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that C has no claim against
B because B has not been enriched at C's expense.
c.
The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard
Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4
SA 19 (A).
d.
The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard
Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4
SA 19 (A).
e.
Assessment 2
Started onWednesday, 4 March 2026, 10:49 AM
StateFinished
Completed onWednesday, 4 March 2026, 11:17 AM
Time taken27 mins 47 secs
Marks18.00/20.00
Grade90.00 out of 100.00
1
Question
F
q
g
la
n
stio
e
u
Question text
Which of the following is/are (a) prerequisite(s) for a claim
in terms of the condictio indebiti?
a.
The enrichment was unlawful.
b.
The defendant was unjustifiably enriched.
c.
There was a causal link between the enrichment and
impoverishment.
, d.
The mistake must have been excusable.
e.
The defendant was unjustifiably enriched; there was a
causal link between the enrichment and impoverishment,
and the mistake must have been excusable.
Feedback
Your answer is incorrect.
Take note that the general requirements for enrichment
liability must be proven in the case of all enrichment
actions. Unlawfulness is a requirement with regards to
the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam.
The correct answer is:
The defendant was unjustifiably enriched; there was a
causal link between the enrichment and impoverishment,
and the mistake must have been excusable.
2
Question
F
q
g
la
n
stio
e
u
Question text
A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While
travelling in the Northern Cape, the vehicle breaks down.
A contracts with C, a garage in Springbok, to repair the
vehicle at a cost of R12,000. After two days A leases
, another vehicle from X and completes his trip. He departs
for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B.
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim
against B and the authority on which it is based?
a.
In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd
1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that C has no claim against
B because B had not been enriched.
b.
In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd
1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that C has no claim against
B because B has not been enriched at C's expense.
c.
The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard
Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4
SA 19 (A).
d.
The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard
Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4
SA 19 (A).
e.
