100% PASS
20/20
NAME : MOTLATSO RAMATSHEKGISA
STUDENT NO: 50061259
MODULE: PVL3704
ASSIGNMENT: NO. 1 of SEMESTER 1/2024
UNIQUE NUMBER: 146664
DATE: 12 MARCH 2024
, 1.1
NAME MOTLATSO RAMATSHEKGISA
STUDENT NO 50061259
MODULE PVL3704
ASSIGNMENT NO. 1 of SEMESTER 1/2024
UNIQUE NUMBER 146664
DATE 12 MARCH 2024
QUESTION 1
1. There must be a causal link between enrichment and impoverishment. However,
in our question it is expressed that the defendant must be at the expense of the
plaintiff. The issue arises in cases whereby there is indirect enrichment – for
example (I will employ the alphabets to demonstrate my example) where A render
performance to B but the benefits of the performance stem to the other person C.
De Vos was however of the view that the fact that B does not render performance
to A, cannot affect juridical position between A and C, and that C is enriched at B
expense and not A’s expense. In that case, A cannot bring an enrichment action
against C. His opinion was then approved by the Transvaal Provisional Division in
the case of Gouws v Jester where A and B had entered in to a contract were A had
built a swimming pool for B , and on land that he was under impression that It
belongs B which was ipso facto property of C. B had then disappeared without
having to effect his obligation in terms of the contract between himself and A. A
then brought an action against C, which was rejected, with the findings of Jansen,
that C has been enriched at B’s expense not A’s.1
The “at the expense of” was however necessitated by Vander walt, that the
requirement is exhausted once there was direct transfer of assets from A’s estate
to C-direct transfer pass directly from A to C and not from A to B and B to C. The
issue was dealt with in the case of Buzzard Electrical, where the court contrasted
two situations, the first is where (as it appears in the case of Gouws ) someone (A)
1
University of South Africa, Unjustified Enrichment Liability and Estoppel: Study Guide 1 PVL3704
(2018 University of South Africa Muckleneuk, Pretoria) 21 see also Gouws v Jester pools (pty) Ltd 1968
3 SA 653 (T).
20/20
NAME : MOTLATSO RAMATSHEKGISA
STUDENT NO: 50061259
MODULE: PVL3704
ASSIGNMENT: NO. 1 of SEMESTER 1/2024
UNIQUE NUMBER: 146664
DATE: 12 MARCH 2024
, 1.1
NAME MOTLATSO RAMATSHEKGISA
STUDENT NO 50061259
MODULE PVL3704
ASSIGNMENT NO. 1 of SEMESTER 1/2024
UNIQUE NUMBER 146664
DATE 12 MARCH 2024
QUESTION 1
1. There must be a causal link between enrichment and impoverishment. However,
in our question it is expressed that the defendant must be at the expense of the
plaintiff. The issue arises in cases whereby there is indirect enrichment – for
example (I will employ the alphabets to demonstrate my example) where A render
performance to B but the benefits of the performance stem to the other person C.
De Vos was however of the view that the fact that B does not render performance
to A, cannot affect juridical position between A and C, and that C is enriched at B
expense and not A’s expense. In that case, A cannot bring an enrichment action
against C. His opinion was then approved by the Transvaal Provisional Division in
the case of Gouws v Jester where A and B had entered in to a contract were A had
built a swimming pool for B , and on land that he was under impression that It
belongs B which was ipso facto property of C. B had then disappeared without
having to effect his obligation in terms of the contract between himself and A. A
then brought an action against C, which was rejected, with the findings of Jansen,
that C has been enriched at B’s expense not A’s.1
The “at the expense of” was however necessitated by Vander walt, that the
requirement is exhausted once there was direct transfer of assets from A’s estate
to C-direct transfer pass directly from A to C and not from A to B and B to C. The
issue was dealt with in the case of Buzzard Electrical, where the court contrasted
two situations, the first is where (as it appears in the case of Gouws ) someone (A)
1
University of South Africa, Unjustified Enrichment Liability and Estoppel: Study Guide 1 PVL3704
(2018 University of South Africa Muckleneuk, Pretoria) 21 see also Gouws v Jester pools (pty) Ltd 1968
3 SA 653 (T).
