Tutorial Letter 201/1/2008
Choose the most correct option in every instance . If there is more than one correct
option, choose the appropriate combined option.
Question 1 to 3.
The following facts are relevant for questions 1 to 3.
A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is owing.
B has checked its records and has paid the amount in the bona fide belief that the
amount is owing in terms of their contract. Unbeknown to B, his bookkeeper, C had
already paid the amount a week earlier by way of an electronic funds transfer into the
account of A. At the time of the second payment A's account was overdrawn in the
amount of R30,000 and was therefore in credit of R20,000 after the payment. A has taken
R15,000 out of his account to pay his employees their monthly wages. He has also paid
R10,000 for a luxury weekend after realising that his account was in credit.
Answer: These questions deal with the condictio indebiti and its requirements. The claim
cannot be delictual because A's misrepresentation was innocently made. The claim can also
not be based on the contract, because there had already been payment which extinguished
the duty to pay in terms of the contract.
Next evaluate the answers against the requirements of the condictio indebiti. Here the one
party made a bona fide payment that was not owing and under circumstances that was
excusable, partly because the mistake was induced by A's misrepresentation.
Question 1
Which statement best explains the nature of the claim against A?
1. B has a claim against A based on delict for a fraudulent misstatement.
2. B has contractual claim against A based on their contract.
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 condictio indebiti.
5. B has no claim against A because he paid the amount voluntarily.
6. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis.
Question 2
Answer: A's enrichment took place at the expense of B because B was the person who in law
is regarded as the person who made the payment, even if C physically made the payment. At
the time of the payment, the duty to pay had already been extinguished – the payment
therefore cannot be in terms of the agreement, even if B thought so. The enrichment is not
unlawful because B's conduct was not delictual in nature. The bank made payment in terms
of its agreement with B and is therefore entitled to debit B's account. Accordingly it was not
impoverished. Consider whether all of the other requirements for enrichment liability and the
condictio indebiti have been complied with.
, 3 PVL3043/201
Which statement regarding the requirements for an enrichment action is correct?
1. A has been enriched at the expense of B.
2. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment.
3. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B.
4. A's enrichment is unlawful because he made a demand for payment at a time that it was
not due.
5. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank.
6. B has no claim because the requirements have not been met.
Question 3
Answer: A was initially enriched by an amount of R 50,000 on receipt of the money. The fact
that his overdraft was extinguished, does not diminish his enrichment as his debts have
decreased by R 20,000. The payment of the wages also does not cause his enrichment to
diminish as those are expense he would have had in any event. The cost of the luxury holiday,
however, does constitute an extinction of his enrichment, as he would probably not have made
these expense if his account had not been in credit. There is no indication on the facts provided
that A should have realised that he was enriched.
Which statement best explains the calculation of the enrichment claim?
1. B can claim an amount of R50,000 from A with an enrichment action.
2. B can only claim R20,000 from A because his account was overdrawn and the bank
received the benefit of the other R30,000.
3. B can claim nothing as A has not been unjustifiably enriched at his expense.
4. B can claim only R25,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been spent on
the wages and A's holiday.
5. B can claim only R40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been lost on
the luxury holiday.
6. B can claim only R35,000 because the rest of the enrichment has been lost on the wages
paid.
Question 4
Answer: Have another look at the requirements for the condictio indebiti. Unlawfulness is not
a requirement. For the condictio indebiti it is required that the impoverished party must have
made a payment that was not owing as a result of an excusable mistake.
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 2 and 3 are correct
5. 1 and 2 are correct
6. 1 and 3 are correct.
, 4
Question 5
Answer: In the case of stopped checks the appropriate action is the condictio sine causa
specialis. Where a contract is terminated due to breach, the action ground is contractual and
not in enrichment. Where one is dealing with illegal contracts, the appropriate action is the
condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. In instance number 5 the correct action is the
condictio causa data causa non secuta. In number 6 the correct action is the extended actio
negotiorum gestio.
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
1. Where a bank has made payment in terms of countermanded cheque.
2. Where a party knowingly makes a payment that is not due, but under duress and protest.
3. Where a contract is rescinded due to a breach of contract.
4. Where a party has made an undue payment in terms of an illegal contract.
5. Where a party has made payment which is due but where the cause for the payment
later falls away.
6. Where a party has paid the debt of a third party for purposes which benefits the paying
party.
Question 6-7
The following facts are relevant for Question 6 and 7.
X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 on the
property it is renting from Z. It can be shown that the value of the property has increased
by R20,000 due to the improvement. X has disappeared before paying Y for the work
done. Y now wants to lodge a claim against Z, the owner of the property.
Answer: This case deals with indirect enrichment. Have another look at the decisions in
Gouws v Jester Pools and the Buzzard Electrical case. In the Gouws case it was decided that
Y only had a contractual claim against the lessee, X and no enrichment action against the
owner, Z. In the Buzzard Electrical case this issue was left undecided by the appellate division.
Question 6
Which statement best explains the ground on which and amount that Y can claim?
1. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000.
2. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R20,000.
3. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
4. X has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000.
5. Y has an enrichment claim against X R 20,000.
, 5 PVL3043/201
Question 7
Answer: T
Which statement best explains the authority on which you based your answer in
question 6?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that Y has no claim against Z because Z had not been enriched at his expense.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that Y has a claim against Z because Z had been enriched at his expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed 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 confirmed in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v
Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A)
Question 8
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is
currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a veterinary
doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the medication. The
total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. Which statement best
explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
Answer: In this case G does not have to rely on an enrichment claim, because in that case
he would have no claim as the neighbour is no longer enriched. G can rely on the true action
for tending to another's property, namely the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria. In terms of
this action he can reclaim all expenses reasonably made in the attempt to preserve his
neighbour's property.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail because
the bull died.
6. G has a claim against H as the agent of H.
Question 9
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is currently
on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a veterinary doctor to
attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the medication. The total cost was
R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. G is a meddlesome neighbour and Hhas
previously warned him not to do anything on his farm under any circumstances, but rather
to call K, if G should notice any problem. G did not bother to call K. Which statement best
explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
Choose the most correct option in every instance . If there is more than one correct
option, choose the appropriate combined option.
Question 1 to 3.
The following facts are relevant for questions 1 to 3.
A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is owing.
B has checked its records and has paid the amount in the bona fide belief that the
amount is owing in terms of their contract. Unbeknown to B, his bookkeeper, C had
already paid the amount a week earlier by way of an electronic funds transfer into the
account of A. At the time of the second payment A's account was overdrawn in the
amount of R30,000 and was therefore in credit of R20,000 after the payment. A has taken
R15,000 out of his account to pay his employees their monthly wages. He has also paid
R10,000 for a luxury weekend after realising that his account was in credit.
Answer: These questions deal with the condictio indebiti and its requirements. The claim
cannot be delictual because A's misrepresentation was innocently made. The claim can also
not be based on the contract, because there had already been payment which extinguished
the duty to pay in terms of the contract.
Next evaluate the answers against the requirements of the condictio indebiti. Here the one
party made a bona fide payment that was not owing and under circumstances that was
excusable, partly because the mistake was induced by A's misrepresentation.
Question 1
Which statement best explains the nature of the claim against A?
1. B has a claim against A based on delict for a fraudulent misstatement.
2. B has contractual claim against A based on their contract.
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 condictio indebiti.
5. B has no claim against A because he paid the amount voluntarily.
6. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis.
Question 2
Answer: A's enrichment took place at the expense of B because B was the person who in law
is regarded as the person who made the payment, even if C physically made the payment. At
the time of the payment, the duty to pay had already been extinguished – the payment
therefore cannot be in terms of the agreement, even if B thought so. The enrichment is not
unlawful because B's conduct was not delictual in nature. The bank made payment in terms
of its agreement with B and is therefore entitled to debit B's account. Accordingly it was not
impoverished. Consider whether all of the other requirements for enrichment liability and the
condictio indebiti have been complied with.
, 3 PVL3043/201
Which statement regarding the requirements for an enrichment action is correct?
1. A has been enriched at the expense of B.
2. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment.
3. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B.
4. A's enrichment is unlawful because he made a demand for payment at a time that it was
not due.
5. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank.
6. B has no claim because the requirements have not been met.
Question 3
Answer: A was initially enriched by an amount of R 50,000 on receipt of the money. The fact
that his overdraft was extinguished, does not diminish his enrichment as his debts have
decreased by R 20,000. The payment of the wages also does not cause his enrichment to
diminish as those are expense he would have had in any event. The cost of the luxury holiday,
however, does constitute an extinction of his enrichment, as he would probably not have made
these expense if his account had not been in credit. There is no indication on the facts provided
that A should have realised that he was enriched.
Which statement best explains the calculation of the enrichment claim?
1. B can claim an amount of R50,000 from A with an enrichment action.
2. B can only claim R20,000 from A because his account was overdrawn and the bank
received the benefit of the other R30,000.
3. B can claim nothing as A has not been unjustifiably enriched at his expense.
4. B can claim only R25,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been spent on
the wages and A's holiday.
5. B can claim only R40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been lost on
the luxury holiday.
6. B can claim only R35,000 because the rest of the enrichment has been lost on the wages
paid.
Question 4
Answer: Have another look at the requirements for the condictio indebiti. Unlawfulness is not
a requirement. For the condictio indebiti it is required that the impoverished party must have
made a payment that was not owing as a result of an excusable mistake.
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 2 and 3 are correct
5. 1 and 2 are correct
6. 1 and 3 are correct.
, 4
Question 5
Answer: In the case of stopped checks the appropriate action is the condictio sine causa
specialis. Where a contract is terminated due to breach, the action ground is contractual and
not in enrichment. Where one is dealing with illegal contracts, the appropriate action is the
condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. In instance number 5 the correct action is the
condictio causa data causa non secuta. In number 6 the correct action is the extended actio
negotiorum gestio.
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
1. Where a bank has made payment in terms of countermanded cheque.
2. Where a party knowingly makes a payment that is not due, but under duress and protest.
3. Where a contract is rescinded due to a breach of contract.
4. Where a party has made an undue payment in terms of an illegal contract.
5. Where a party has made payment which is due but where the cause for the payment
later falls away.
6. Where a party has paid the debt of a third party for purposes which benefits the paying
party.
Question 6-7
The following facts are relevant for Question 6 and 7.
X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 on the
property it is renting from Z. It can be shown that the value of the property has increased
by R20,000 due to the improvement. X has disappeared before paying Y for the work
done. Y now wants to lodge a claim against Z, the owner of the property.
Answer: This case deals with indirect enrichment. Have another look at the decisions in
Gouws v Jester Pools and the Buzzard Electrical case. In the Gouws case it was decided that
Y only had a contractual claim against the lessee, X and no enrichment action against the
owner, Z. In the Buzzard Electrical case this issue was left undecided by the appellate division.
Question 6
Which statement best explains the ground on which and amount that Y can claim?
1. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000.
2. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R20,000.
3. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
4. X has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000.
5. Y has an enrichment claim against X R 20,000.
, 5 PVL3043/201
Question 7
Answer: T
Which statement best explains the authority on which you based your answer in
question 6?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that Y has no claim against Z because Z had not been enriched at his expense.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that Y has a claim against Z because Z had been enriched at his expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed 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 confirmed in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v
Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A)
Question 8
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is
currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a veterinary
doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the medication. The
total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. Which statement best
explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
Answer: In this case G does not have to rely on an enrichment claim, because in that case
he would have no claim as the neighbour is no longer enriched. G can rely on the true action
for tending to another's property, namely the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria. In terms of
this action he can reclaim all expenses reasonably made in the attempt to preserve his
neighbour's property.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail because
the bull died.
6. G has a claim against H as the agent of H.
Question 9
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is currently
on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a veterinary doctor to
attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the medication. The total cost was
R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. G is a meddlesome neighbour and Hhas
previously warned him not to do anything on his farm under any circumstances, but rather
to call K, if G should notice any problem. G did not bother to call K. Which statement best
explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
