MCQ EXAM PACK QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED CORRECT
ANSWERS
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
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
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.
2. B has a claim against S based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
3. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum
utilis (extended management of affairs action).
4. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum
contraria (true management of affairs action).
5. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the
affairs of S without the permission of S.
Answer: As already stated, B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional
contract. B is paying a debt owed by S knowing that he (B) doesn’t owe the debt
and therefore the condictio indebiti will not be available. B’s payment is made to
advance his own interests and therefore the true management of affairs action
will not be available to him. In Odendaal v Van Oudtshoorn 1968 (3) SA 433 (T)
, the court held that the extended management of affairs action will be available
in these circumstances.
Assume the same facts. Further assume that the reason why S refused to pay
X was because the goods delivered were defective. S had a valid claim for
the reduction of the purchase price of those goods in an amount of R13 000.
Indicate which statement best explains the quantum of B’s claim, if any:
1. B has a claim against S for the full amount of R50 000.
2. B has a claim against S for only R37 000.
3. B has a claim against X for the full amount of R50 000.
4. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the
affairs of S without the permission of S.
5. 3 and 4 are both correct.
Answer: B will claim the full R50 000. S will raise the defence that his
enrichment was for a lesser amount, because he had a valid claim for the
reduction of the purchase price.
A owns a factory manufacturing steel in a continuous process. His monthly
electricity bill averages R100 000. He just received a letter from the
Johannesburg Municipality in which they threaten to cut his electricity if he
doesn’t immediately pay his “arrear account of R300 000”. A knows that there
must be a mistake, because his account is paid in full, but also knows that if
there is a disruption in his electricity supply he will suffer severe losses. He pays
the amount immediately and sends a letter of complaint with. Advise A whether
he will be able to reclaim the R300 000 he paid, and with which remedy? In your
answer discuss the requirements for this remedy.
The correct action to be instituted by A is the condictio indebiti. (1) This action is
available in instances where a debt not owing was paid. (1) No unlawful, ultra vires or
void contract is relevant here and therefore it seems as if no other condictiones could be
applicable.
Requirements: (i) Transfer of ownership in the form of payment of money or
delivery of a specific object (1)
(ii) Payment has to take place under the mistaken belief that the
performance was owing. (1)
(iii) The mistake, either a legal or factual mistake, must have been
reasonable in the circumstances (iustus error).
In general a party cannot reclaim performance with the condictio indebiti if he
was aware that the performance wasn’t owing. (1) Such conduct will be
regarded as a donation, unless it was made under threat or protest. (1) (See Study
guide 1, par 4.6 and CIR v First National Industrial Bank Ltd 1990 3 SA 641 (A).)
A made a payment knowingly that the debt wasn’t owing. For A to succeed with the
condictio indebiti against the Johannesburg Municipality in these circumstances he, firstly,
had to prove that he didn’t owe the Municipality the R300 000. (1) Secondly, that the
ANSWERS
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
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
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.
2. B has a claim against S based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
3. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum
utilis (extended management of affairs action).
4. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum
contraria (true management of affairs action).
5. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the
affairs of S without the permission of S.
Answer: As already stated, B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional
contract. B is paying a debt owed by S knowing that he (B) doesn’t owe the debt
and therefore the condictio indebiti will not be available. B’s payment is made to
advance his own interests and therefore the true management of affairs action
will not be available to him. In Odendaal v Van Oudtshoorn 1968 (3) SA 433 (T)
, the court held that the extended management of affairs action will be available
in these circumstances.
Assume the same facts. Further assume that the reason why S refused to pay
X was because the goods delivered were defective. S had a valid claim for
the reduction of the purchase price of those goods in an amount of R13 000.
Indicate which statement best explains the quantum of B’s claim, if any:
1. B has a claim against S for the full amount of R50 000.
2. B has a claim against S for only R37 000.
3. B has a claim against X for the full amount of R50 000.
4. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the
affairs of S without the permission of S.
5. 3 and 4 are both correct.
Answer: B will claim the full R50 000. S will raise the defence that his
enrichment was for a lesser amount, because he had a valid claim for the
reduction of the purchase price.
A owns a factory manufacturing steel in a continuous process. His monthly
electricity bill averages R100 000. He just received a letter from the
Johannesburg Municipality in which they threaten to cut his electricity if he
doesn’t immediately pay his “arrear account of R300 000”. A knows that there
must be a mistake, because his account is paid in full, but also knows that if
there is a disruption in his electricity supply he will suffer severe losses. He pays
the amount immediately and sends a letter of complaint with. Advise A whether
he will be able to reclaim the R300 000 he paid, and with which remedy? In your
answer discuss the requirements for this remedy.
The correct action to be instituted by A is the condictio indebiti. (1) This action is
available in instances where a debt not owing was paid. (1) No unlawful, ultra vires or
void contract is relevant here and therefore it seems as if no other condictiones could be
applicable.
Requirements: (i) Transfer of ownership in the form of payment of money or
delivery of a specific object (1)
(ii) Payment has to take place under the mistaken belief that the
performance was owing. (1)
(iii) The mistake, either a legal or factual mistake, must have been
reasonable in the circumstances (iustus error).
In general a party cannot reclaim performance with the condictio indebiti if he
was aware that the performance wasn’t owing. (1) Such conduct will be
regarded as a donation, unless it was made under threat or protest. (1) (See Study
guide 1, par 4.6 and CIR v First National Industrial Bank Ltd 1990 3 SA 641 (A).)
A made a payment knowingly that the debt wasn’t owing. For A to succeed with the
condictio indebiti against the Johannesburg Municipality in these circumstances he, firstly,
had to prove that he didn’t owe the Municipality the R300 000. (1) Secondly, that the
