PVL3704 - Enrichment and
Estoppel Exams with Correct
Answers
How extent of enrichment liability is calculated?
- plaintiff claimed amount he has been impoverished or
- defendant amount he has been enriched
- whichever is lesser
- quantum of the enrichment claim is calculated at the time the claim is instituted.
- means the defendant is not liable for benefits that he due to his enrichment could have
gained, but didn't.
- If defendant's enrichment has been reduced or extinguished before the claim has been instituted,
his liability will also be reduced or extinguished. - - - The onus to prove non-enrichment lies with the
defendant.
- In four instances the quantum will be
calculated sooner, meaning before the date of institution of the action:
(a) at the moment the
defendant becomes aware of enrichment
(b) at an earlier stage if the defendant should
have known that the benefit wasn't justified
c) when the defendant fell into mora and an
earlier date if the defendant acted mala fide. These exceptions do not apply in the case of
minors.
In quantifying the claim all positive and negative side-effects should be taken into account.
Interest earned on money in the hands of the defendant before litis contestatio cannot be
claimed by the plaintiff, but after mora the plaintiff can claim mora interest.
If the defendant spent the money on something he would not have done if it wasn't for the
enrichment, he can raise the defence of non-enrichment. However, if all or
part of what he spent the money on (eg goods) is still of value and in his hands, he must offer
the goods or the value of the goods to the plaintiff. If the goods are more valuable than the
impoverishment, the difference should be paid to the defendant.
A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is owing. B has
checked his records and has paid the amount in the bona fide belief that the amount is owed 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. Discuss whether B has a claim against A and, if so, how much he
may claim.
B has a claim of unjustified enrichment against A and the relevant remedy applicable is the
condictio indebiti. This action is available where an unowed debt has been paid due to a
justifiable mistake. (1) In this instance A's enrichment took place at the expense of B, because
B was the person in law who made the payment, even if C physically made the payment.
Estoppel Exams with Correct
Answers
How extent of enrichment liability is calculated?
- plaintiff claimed amount he has been impoverished or
- defendant amount he has been enriched
- whichever is lesser
- quantum of the enrichment claim is calculated at the time the claim is instituted.
- means the defendant is not liable for benefits that he due to his enrichment could have
gained, but didn't.
- If defendant's enrichment has been reduced or extinguished before the claim has been instituted,
his liability will also be reduced or extinguished. - - - The onus to prove non-enrichment lies with the
defendant.
- In four instances the quantum will be
calculated sooner, meaning before the date of institution of the action:
(a) at the moment the
defendant becomes aware of enrichment
(b) at an earlier stage if the defendant should
have known that the benefit wasn't justified
c) when the defendant fell into mora and an
earlier date if the defendant acted mala fide. These exceptions do not apply in the case of
minors.
In quantifying the claim all positive and negative side-effects should be taken into account.
Interest earned on money in the hands of the defendant before litis contestatio cannot be
claimed by the plaintiff, but after mora the plaintiff can claim mora interest.
If the defendant spent the money on something he would not have done if it wasn't for the
enrichment, he can raise the defence of non-enrichment. However, if all or
part of what he spent the money on (eg goods) is still of value and in his hands, he must offer
the goods or the value of the goods to the plaintiff. If the goods are more valuable than the
impoverishment, the difference should be paid to the defendant.
A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is owing. B has
checked his records and has paid the amount in the bona fide belief that the amount is owed 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. Discuss whether B has a claim against A and, if so, how much he
may claim.
B has a claim of unjustified enrichment against A and the relevant remedy applicable is the
condictio indebiti. This action is available where an unowed debt has been paid due to a
justifiable mistake. (1) In this instance A's enrichment took place at the expense of B, because
B was the person in law who made the payment, even if C physically made the payment.
