PVL 3043 Multiple choice questions

VARIOUS MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS Question 1: Which statement best describes the basis on which unjustified enrichment law is based in SA law: 1. Unjustified enrichment provides an alternative claim to contractual and delictual claims in cases where a party simultaneously has a contractual or delictual claim. 2. Unjustified enrichment provides a basis for a claim where the enrichment of the enriched person has been obtained in an unlawful manner. 3. Unjustified enrichment provides a basis for a claim where there has been a transfer of property or value from he impoverished party to the enriched party without a sufficient legal ground. 4. Unjustified enrichment provides a basis for a claim where the enriched party obtained its enrichment through the use of unfair contract terms. The following facts are relevant for Questions 2 and 3: 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. A departs for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B. Question 2: Which statement best explains whether C has a claim against B and the authority on which it is based? (1) In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pool (Pty) Ltd 1968 it was held that C has no claim against B because B has not been enriched at C’s expense. (2) In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pool (Pty) Ltd 1968 it was held that C has no claim against B because B has not been enriched. (3) The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts avenue Investments 1996. (4) The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts avenue Investments 1996. Question 3: Which statement best explains whether C has a retention right or whether he can exercise it? (1) C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until it has been paid in full contract price. (2) C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until such time as it has been paid for its necessary expenses. (3) In terms of the decision in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 party C has no retention right because he has no enrichment action against B. (4) C has no retention right under these circumstances. PVL3043 - MCQ Version 1 Page 2 of 27 Question 4: In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used? (1) Where an executor who is now functus officio has made a payment to heirs which were not due because a creditor had lodged its claim too late. (2) Where a person has made a payment in terms of a contract subject to a resolutive condition and the contract has now been extinguished due to the condition being fulfilled. (3) Where an undue payment has been made in circumstances where the mistake is not excusable. (4) Where a bank has made payment in terms of a cheque that has been stopped. Question 5: Which of the following is/are (a) prerequisite(s) for a claim in terms of the condictio indebiti? (1) the enrichment was illegal (2) the defendant was unlawfully enriched (3) there was a causal link between the enrichment and impoverishment (4) payment was made in terms of a valid contract Question 6: A has sold uncut diamonds to B for an amount of R100,000 in contravention of statutory law. B has paid the amount but before the diamonds could be delivered, it was confiscated by the police during a raid of A’s house. Which statement best explains the legal position of the possible claim B may have against A? (1) In circumstances like these a court may exercise an equitable judicial discretion to relax the par delictum rule, depending on the relative turpitude of the parties’ conduct. (2) B has a claim for damage against A due to a breach of contract. (3) B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio sine cause specialis because there is no other enrichment action at his disposal. (4) B has a claim for damage against A based on delict. Question 7: In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis be used? (1) as a general enrichment action (2) where a bank has made payment in terms of a cheque that had been stopped by the drawer (3) Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement. (4) Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error. The following facts are relevant for Question 8-10. K is the owner of a farm adjacent to that of L. Unbeknown to K and L, K has been occupying part of L’s land due to a fence that was mistakenly put up 10 years ago. K has effected the following improvements on that part of the farm: (a) built a dam at a cost of R30, 000; (b) a luxury lapa on the edge of the dam at a cost of R100,000; (c) a borehole at a cost of R20, 000; (d) planted fruit trees at a cost of R15,000; (e) planted mealies which are almost ready to harvest at a cost of R60,000 (value R120,000). During his tenure of the land he has harvested