Law of Delict
PVL3703
Semester 1 and 2
Assignment 01
Due date: 07 May 2021
Student: Mr. Ndwakhulu Gilbert Chauke
Student no: 32321279
, Question
Read the judgment in Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck 2019 (4) SA 127 (SCA)
and write a discussion of 500-1000 words.
In your discussion, you must:
(a) Discuss what the Supreme Court of Appeal decided in respect of the element of
wrongfulness only in Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck 2019 (4) SA 127 (SCA).
In other words, we expect you to explain how the Supreme Court of Appeal came to
the conclusion that the Municipality’s conduct was not wrongful.
(b) Compare the court’s decision with that of Neethling and Potgieter on how
wrongfulness should be established. Here we expect you to briefly lay out the manner
in which Neethling and Potgieter recommend that wrongfulness should be established,
particularly in cases of omissions. With regard to the comparison, you must point out
any similarities between the Supreme Court of Appeal’s principles in establishing
wrongfulness and Neethling and Potgieter’s principles in establishing wrongfulness.
You must also point out any marked differences if any.
Answer
(a) In the Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck case the Supreme Court of Appeal
(SCA) came to the conclusion that the Municipality’s conduct was not wrongful. The
SCA applied the boni mores test which entailed the ex post facto balancing or
weighing-up of the interests that the defendant promoted by his act against those
which he infringed. The boni mores test is an objective test based on the criterion
of reasonableness. When applying the boni mores principle to determine
wrongfulness, the basic question that needs to be asked is whether, according to
the legal convictions of the community and in light of all the circumstances of the
case, the defendant infringed the interests of the plaintiff in an unreasonable
manner. The SCA in the Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck 2019 case weighed
the conflicting interests of the defendant and plaintiff, and the social consequences
of imposing liability in similar instances, in light of all the relevant circumstances and
in view of all pertinent factors in order to decide whether the infringement of the
plaintiff’s interests was reasonable or unreasonable. As such, the Court held that:
PVL3703
Semester 1 and 2
Assignment 01
Due date: 07 May 2021
Student: Mr. Ndwakhulu Gilbert Chauke
Student no: 32321279
, Question
Read the judgment in Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck 2019 (4) SA 127 (SCA)
and write a discussion of 500-1000 words.
In your discussion, you must:
(a) Discuss what the Supreme Court of Appeal decided in respect of the element of
wrongfulness only in Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck 2019 (4) SA 127 (SCA).
In other words, we expect you to explain how the Supreme Court of Appeal came to
the conclusion that the Municipality’s conduct was not wrongful.
(b) Compare the court’s decision with that of Neethling and Potgieter on how
wrongfulness should be established. Here we expect you to briefly lay out the manner
in which Neethling and Potgieter recommend that wrongfulness should be established,
particularly in cases of omissions. With regard to the comparison, you must point out
any similarities between the Supreme Court of Appeal’s principles in establishing
wrongfulness and Neethling and Potgieter’s principles in establishing wrongfulness.
You must also point out any marked differences if any.
Answer
(a) In the Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck case the Supreme Court of Appeal
(SCA) came to the conclusion that the Municipality’s conduct was not wrongful. The
SCA applied the boni mores test which entailed the ex post facto balancing or
weighing-up of the interests that the defendant promoted by his act against those
which he infringed. The boni mores test is an objective test based on the criterion
of reasonableness. When applying the boni mores principle to determine
wrongfulness, the basic question that needs to be asked is whether, according to
the legal convictions of the community and in light of all the circumstances of the
case, the defendant infringed the interests of the plaintiff in an unreasonable
manner. The SCA in the Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck 2019 case weighed
the conflicting interests of the defendant and plaintiff, and the social consequences
of imposing liability in similar instances, in light of all the relevant circumstances and
in view of all pertinent factors in order to decide whether the infringement of the
plaintiff’s interests was reasonable or unreasonable. As such, the Court held that:
