PVL3704-MCQ-2009-to-2020

MCQ’s – 2009 to 2019: 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 13, 21 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 32-33 as well as the answer to the previous question. (1) 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, however, does have an enrichment claim against the payee in so far as the payee has been enriched. See your Study guide pp 50-51; 73 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. Feedback: Although the approach to award an enrichment claim under these circumstances has been criticized, the leading case of Spencer v Gostelow is authority that the employee has an enrichment claim in these circumstances. See your Study guide pp 138-139. (1) 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. Question 5 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 Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that C has no claim against B because B had not been enriched. 2. 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. 3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A). 4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A). 5. The decision in the Gouws case was overruled in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A). Feedback: There are two approaches on the issue whether the garage has an enrichment claim under these circumstances: In the Gouws case the court held that the owner of the property was not enriched at the expense of the person making the improvements or attachments, because that person has a contractual claim against the lessee. The decision in the Gouws case was left open in the Buzzard Electrical decision. The Brooklyn House Furnishers decision does not deal with this issue. See also the approach adopted in the Hubby’s Investments case. See your Study guide pp 17 ff. (1) Question 6 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 such time as it has been paid for its necessary expenses. 2. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until it has been paid the full contract price. 3. In terms of the decision in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A) C has no retention right because it has no enrichment claim against B. 4. An enrichment retention right is a personal right and can therefore be exercised only against the creditor. 5. C has no retention right under these circumstances