PVL3704 multiple-choice Q AND A.

(d) Make a definite conclusion on the question asked B has an enrichment claim against A amounting to R40, 000 only as the rest of the enrichment amount has been lost on the luxury holiday. (1) See Study Guide 1, par. 2.2.1. [max 10] 1.2 ANSWERS TO ASSIGNMENT 2 The correct answer to each of the questions below is the one blocked. Brief explanations are given as to why each choice is right or wrong. Revert back to that part of the Study Guide if you still do not understand why a certain choice is right and the others wrong. Choose the most correct option in every instance. If there is more than one correct option, choose the appropriate combined option. Question 1 Which one of the following statements cannot be regarded as a general requirement for enrichment liability? 1. The plaintiff must have been impoverished. 2. The enrichment must have taken place without a justifiable cause. 3. The enrichment must have taken place unlawfully. 4. The defendant must have been enriched. 5. The plaintiff is only entitled to the lesser of his impoverishment and the enrichment of the defendant. Feedback: There is no general requirement of unlawfulness when dealing with unjustified enrichment law, although it may be relevant in the case of the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. Make sure that you understand the difference between unlawfulness and the requirement that the enrichment must have taken place unjustifiably, ie without a valid underlying cause. See your Study guide pp 16, 25 ff. (1) Question 2 In order to be successful with a claim based on the condictio indebiti, the plaintiff must prove the following fact(s) or requirement(s): 1. That the impoverished party made a payment that was not due. 2. That the enrichment was unlawful. 3. That the mistake of the impoverished party was excusable. 4. 1 and 3 are correct. 5. 1 and 2 and 3 are correct. Feedback: See the discussion of the requirements for the condictio indebiti on pp 36 as well as the answer to the previous question. (1) Downloaded by Charlene Hefer () lOMoARcPSD| PVL3704/201 Question 3 A has paid B an amount of R 40,000 by cheque. Before B could present the cheque to his bank, A countermanded the cheque because B had delivered defective goods to him. X, a clerk at A’s bank failed to notice the countermand notice and payment of the amount was made to B. Indicate which statement best explains the nature of the possible claims by A or the bank: 1. B has been enriched at the expense of the bank, because the bank had no mandate to make a payment from A’s account. 2. B has been enriched at the expense of A, from whose account the payment was made. 3. A has an enrichment claim against B for the full amount of R 40,000. 4. A has an enrichment claim against B for a reduced amount. 5. 2 and 4 are both correct. Feedback: If the bank makes a payment on a countermanded cheque, the bank has no mandate from its client to make the payment from the client’s account. The bank has an obligation to reverse the payment under these circumstances. The bank does have a possible enrichment claim against the payee in so far as the payee has been enriched. Where, however, the payment is made to extinguish a debt, there is no enrichment and consequently no action. See your Study guide pp 49; 71 ff. (1) Question 4 E is an employee of M. E is paid a monthly salary of R 20,000. On 15 June M summarily dismissed E because of theft of company assets. The dismissal was lawful in terms of the employment contract and employment law. Indicate which statement best explains the possible claim that E might have against his employer: 1. E has no claim for any part of his salary. 2. E has a contractual claim for the full amount of his salary for June. 3. E has a pro rata claim for half of his salary of June based on the principle of unjustified enrichment. 4. E has a contractual claim for a pro rata part of his salary for June. 5. E has a claim for the full amount of his salary for June based on the principle of unjustified enrichment.