PVL3704 MQS (Q&A)

The following facts are relevant for questions 1-4: A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R 50,000 which he believes B is owing. B has checked his records and they indicate that A has already been paid by C, B’s book keeper. A threatens B with legal action and B pays A, but under protest, an amount of R 50,000. At the time of the cheque payment A's account was overdrawn in the amount of R 30,000 and was therefore in credit of R 20,000 after the payment. A has taken R 10,000 out of his account to have his car serviced. He has also gambled away R 10,000 after realising that his account was in credit. Question 1 Which statement best explains the nature of B’s claim against A? 1 B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. 2 B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio indebiti. 3 B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio causa data causa non secuta. 4 B has an enrichment claim against A based on the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria. 5 B has an enrichment claim against A based on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis. (2) Question 2 Which statement is incorrect? 1 A has not been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment. 2 A's enrichment is not unjustified as B made a donation to A. 3 A's enrichment is unjustified even though there was a contract between A and B. 4 A has not been impoverished when the bank debited an amount of R 30,000 from his account. 5 B has not been impoverished by the conduct of the bank. (2) Question 3 Which statement best explains the calculation of the enrichment claim? 1 B can only claim R 20,000 from A because his account was overdrawn and the bank received the benefit of the other R 30,000. 2 B can claim nothing from A as all the money has been used. 3 B can claim only R 30,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been spent on a car service and gambling. 4 B can claim only R 40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been lost on a car service. 5 B can claim only R 40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been lost on gambling. (2) PVL3704/201 Question 4 Which statement best explains the calculation of the enrichment claim if A had been unjustifiably enriched at the expense of B and had known it all along? 1 B can claim nothing from A as all the money has been used. 2 B can only claim R 20,000 from A because his account was overdrawn and the bank received the benefit of the other R 30,000. 3 B can claim only R 30,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been spent on a car service and gambling. 4 B can claim only R 40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been lost on a car service. 5 B can claim R 50,000 even though some of the enrichment amount has been lost on gambling. (2) The following facts are relevant for questions 5-8: A buys B’s Mercedes Benz for R 200,000. B tells A during the negotiations that the car is in an excellent condition and that it has just been serviced. A pays B for the car with a cheque drawn on A’s bank - C Bank. B also banks with C Bank. A day after taking delivery of the car A finds that the gearbox is faulty. To repair the gearbox will cost R 30,000. Be refuses to pay for the repairs and states that A damaged the gearbox by towing a too heavy load with the car. A is unhappy and immediately instructs C Bank not pay the proceeds of the cheque out to B. Due to a clerical error C Bank nevertheless pays the R 200,000 out to B. Question 5 Which statement regarding impoverishment and enrichment is most correct? 1 A has been impoverished and B has been enriched. 2 B has been impoverished and A has been enriched. 3 C has been impoverished and A has been enriched