Hierdie vraestel bestaan uit 37 bladsye STUDENT NUMBER · The unique number to be filled-in on the...

[TURN OVER]

[BLAAI OM]

PVL3704 MEMORANDUM MAY/JUNE 2011 This paper consists of 37 pages plus instructions for the completion of a mark-reading sheet. Hierdie vraestel bestaan uit 37 bladsye plus instruksies vir die voltooiing van 'n merkleesblad.

STUDENT NUMBER STUDENTENOMMER

-

-

This examination paper remains the property of the University of South Africa and may not be removed from the examination room. Hierdie eksamenvraestel bly die eiendom van die Universiteit van Suid-Afrika en mag nie uit die eksamenlokaal verwyder word nie.

INSTRUCTIONS 1. This paper consists of Section A: Multiple-choice questions (to be answered on the mark-reading sheet)

and Section B: Fill-in questions (to be answered on the fill-in question paper). You will not receive an examination book.

2. You must hand in the complete examination paper plus the mark-reading sheet. 3. The unique number to be filled-in on the mark-reading sheet is 475152 for PVL3704 or 493785 for PVL3043. 4. Answer all the questions in the designated spaces only. Answers outside such spaces will not be read. 5. Do not write in the margins - this space is reserved for the examiners. 6. Do your rough work on page 2. This page will not be read by the examiners. 7. The English version of each question is followed by the Afrikaans version. 8. This paper counts 100 marks. Divide your time accordingly. 9. Plan each answer carefully before you write it down and refer to the relevant authority whenever possible. INSTRUKSIES 1. Hierdie vraestel bestaan uit Afdeling A: Multikeusevrae (wat op die merkleesblad beantwoord word) en

Afdeling B: Invulvrae (wat op die invulvraestel beantwoord word). U ontvang geen eksamenboek nie. 2. U moet die hele vraestel inlewer, asook die merkleesblad. 3. Die unieke nommer wat op die merkleesblad ingevul moet word, is 475152 vir PVL3704 of 493785 vir PVL3043. 4. Beantwoord al die vrae net in die ruimtes daarvoor aangedui. Antwoorde buite sodanige ruimtes sal nie gelees

word nie. 5. Moenie in die kantlyne skryf nie - dié ruimte is vir gebruik deur die eksaminatore. 6. Doen u rofwerk op bladsy 2. Dié bladsy sal nie deur die eksaminatore gelees word nie. 7. Die Afrikaanse weergawe van elke vraag volg direk na die Engelse weergawe. 8. Die vraestel tel 100 punte. Deel u tyd daarvolgens in.

PVL3704 / PVL3043 May/June 2011 Mei/Junie 2011

[TURN OVER] [BLAAI OM]

2

9.Beplan elke antwoord deeglik voordat u dit neerskryf en verwys waar nodig na relevante gesag.



3

ROUGH WORK / ROFWERK Do all your rough work on this page. This page will not be read by the examiners. Doen al u rofwerk op hierdie bladsy. Hierdie bladsy sal nie deur die eksaminatore gelees word nie.



4

SECTION A / AFDELING A DIE AFRIKAANSE VRAE VOLG NA DIE ENGELSE VRAE. CHOOSE THE MOST CORRECT OPTION IN EVERY INSTANCE . 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. Question 1 Which statement best explains the nature of B’s 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. (2) Question 2 Which statement regarding the requirements for an enrichment action is correct? →1. A has been enriched at the expense of B. 2. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank. 3. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment. 4. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B. (2)



5

Question 3 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 only R40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been

lost on the luxury holiday. 4. B can claim only R25,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been

spent on the wages and A's holiday. (2) Question 4 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. (2) Question 5 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. (2)



6

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. Question 6 Which statement best explains the ground on which and the amount that Y can claim? 1. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000. →2. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000. 3. X has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000. 4. Y has an enrichment claim against X for R 20,000. (2) Question 7 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 Y’s 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 Y’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). (2)



7

Question 8 G has noticed that his neighbour's (H’s) 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? 1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been

wasted. →2. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for

R12,000. 3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for

R12,000. 4. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail

because the bull died. (2) The following facts are relevant for Questions 9-11. K is the owner of a farm adjacent to that of L. Unbeknown to K and L, K has been occupying part of L's land due to a fence that was mistakenly put up 10 years ago. K has effected the following improvements on that part of the farm: (a) built a dam at a cost of R30,000; (b) a luxury lapa on the edge of the dam at a cost of R100,000; (c) a borehole at a cost of R20,000; (d) planted fruit trees at a cost of R15,000; and (e) planted mealies which are almost ready to harvest at a cost of R60,000 (value R120,000). During his tenure of the land he has harvested mealies worth R300,000 (production cost R250,000) and fruit from the fruit trees sold at R55,000. L has now become aware of the true situation and demands that K leaves the land. Question 9 Which statement best explains the nature of K's possession or occupation of the land? 1. K is a bona fide occupier of the land. 2. K is a mala fide occupier of the land. →3. K is a bona fide possessor of the land. 4. K is a lawful occupier of the land. (2)



8

Question 10 Which statement best explains the nature and extent of K's claim(s), if any? 1. K has an enrichment action for all of the expenses that he has incurred on the

improvement of L's land. 2. K has an enrichment action for the full amount of all the necessary and useful

expenses he has incurred. →3. K has an enrichment action for the useful and necessary expenses he has

incurred to the extent that those expenses have increased the value of L's land. 4. K has no claim for the mealies which have not been harvested yet as they now

belong to L. (2) Question 11 Which statement best explains the amounts that may be brought into account against K's claim, if any? 1. L is not entitled to subtract anything from K's enrichment claim. 2. L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of

K's occupation of the land. 3. L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of

the mealies and fruit harvested by K and the value of K's occupation of the land. →4. L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of

the mealies harvested by K minus the production costs. (2)



9

Question 12 X and Y have concluded a contract in terms of which Y must perform certain building work for X against payment of R200,000. The building work is not completed by Y and X has concluded a contract with Z to complete the work at a cost of R30,000. X now refuses to pay Y because he had failed to complete his contract. Indicate which one of the following statements best describe Y's possible claim: 1. Y has no claim because he has committed a breach of contract. →2. Y has a contractual claim against X for a reduced amount (R170,000) because X

has accepted the building work and has made use of it. 3. Y has an enrichment claim for a reduced amount to be calculated on the basis of

the amount by which the property of X had in fact increased in value. 4. Y is entitled to payment of the full contract price despite the fact that he has not

completed his contract. (2) Question 13 In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio causa data causa non secuta be instituted? 1. Where a claim is instituted by an unpaid creditor against the beneficiary of a

deceased estate. 2. Where a contractual warranty has not been honoured. 3. Where performance has been made in terms of an illegal agreement. →4. Where a resolutive condition has been fulfilled. (2) Question 14 In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam be instituted? 1. Where a claim is instituted by an unpaid creditor against the beneficiary of a

deceased estate.

2. Where a contractual warranty has not been honoured.

→3. Where performance has been made in terms of an illegal agreement.

4. Where a resolutive condition has been fulfilled. (2)



10

Question 15 In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be instituted? →1. Where a claim is instituted by an unpaid creditor against the beneficiary of a

deceased estate. 2. Where a contractual warranty has not been honoured. 3. Where performance has been made in terms of an illegal agreement. 4. Where a resolutive condition has been fulfilled. (2) Question 16 Indicate which one of the following is NOT a requirement for a valid reliance on estoppel: 1. There must have been a material misrepresentation. 2. The misrepresentation must have caused detrimental conduct by the person

relying on the estoppel. →3. The person denying estoppel must have made the misrepresentation intentionally

to mislead the person relying on the estoppel. 4. The reliance on estoppel must be allowed by law. (2)



11

The following set of facts is relevant for Questions 17 to 21. A has sold his television set to B for R2,000. The contract stipulates that ownership will only pass to B after the last instalment of R200 has been paid. A has given a letter to B stating the following: “Herewith I, A, confirm that I have sold a Sony TV set No 123321 to B.” After a period of six months and payment of R1,200 B wants to sell the set to C and shows C the letter from A. C who is very cautious, first phones A who again confirms the sale to B. C buys the set from B for R1,500. Thereafter B fails to make any further payments to A. A now claims back his TV set from C with a rei vindicatio. Question 17 Which statement provides the most correct explanation of the current legal position? 1. A has committed a misrepresentation to C by giving the misleading letter to B

while he should have realised that B could abuse the letter according to the decision in Grosvenor Motors (Potchefstroom) Ltd v Douglas 1956 3 SA 420 (A).

→2. A has committed a misrepresentation to C by giving the letter to B and failing to

inform C at the time when C phoned him, that the TV set had not yet been paid in full.

3. A misrepresentation cannot be made by silence. 4. A misrepresentation cannot be made by conduct. (2) Question 18 Indicate which statement most correctly states the position in regard to the fault requirement. →1. The person relying on estoppel must at least allege and prove negligence in cases

where a loss of ownership is involved. 2. The person relying on estoppel must at least allege and prove intent in cases

where a loss of ownership is involved. 3. Fault is never required for a successful reliance on estoppel. 4. Fault is always required for a successful reliance on estoppel. (2)



12

Question 19 Indicate which statement most correctly states the position in regard to the causality requirement. 1. The misrepresentation by the person denying estoppel must have been the only

cause of the detrimental conduct of the person relying on estoppel. 2. In terms of the "proximate cause" test as applied by the courts, the

misrepresentation by the person denying estoppel must have been the only cause of the detrimental conduct of the person relying on estoppel.

3. The "proximate cause" test as applied by the courts, includes only factual

causality and not legal causality. →4. In terms of the "proximate cause" test as applied by the courts, it is sufficient that

the misrepresentation by the person denying estoppel made a material contribution to the detrimental conduct of the person relying on estoppel. (2)

Question 20 Indicate which statement most correctly states the position in regard to the detriment requirement. →1. It is sufficient to prove that the person relying on estoppel has changed his

position to his detriment even if he cannot prove concrete damage suffered. 2. It is not sufficient to prove that the person relying on estoppel has changed his

position to his detriment if he cannot prove concrete damage suffered. 3. The person relying on estoppel must prove that he has already suffered damage

as a result of the misrepresentation in all instances. 4. The person relying on estoppel must prove that he has suffered either patrimonial

damage or non-patrimonial damage. (2)



13

Question 21 Decide which statement most correctly indicates whether C's reliance on estoppel will be successful. 1. C has not acted to his detriment by concluding the contract with B, because he still

has a claim for breach of contract against B. 2. C has not acted to his detriment because he has not suffered any patrimonial

damage. →3. C has acted to his detriment because he has concluded the contract with B, made

payment and now possibly stands to lose the TV set. 4. C cannot rely on estoppel at all in cases where ownership is at stake. (2) Question 22 Indicate which statement most correctly reflects the position in regard to the use of estoppel in the conclusion of a contract. 1. In accordance with the case law estoppel cannot be utilised to keep a party bound

to the misrepresentation he has made in respect of his intention to contract. →2. It is undesirable to use estoppel in cases of mistake to bring a contract into

existence because it creates a fiction or an appearance which only applies between the parties.

3. In Sonap Petroleum (SA) Pty Ltd v Papadogianus 1992 3 SA 234 (A) the court

accepted that it may sometimes be necessary to use estoppel in the case of mistake.

4. Estoppel has never been used in South African law to keep an apparent contract

in tact. (2)



14

Question 23 The city council of Cape Town has a statutory duty to collect property rates and taxes at certain rates. During the past two years the city council has only collected half of the correct amount of taxes from XYZ (Pty) Ltd due to a computer error. The city council has now discovered the mistake and claims immediate payment of an amount of R500,000 from XYZ. XYZ has raised a defence of estoppel against the claim. They maintain that they have paid more dividends to their shareholders in the past two years than they would have done if the city council had claimed the correct amount of rates and taxes. Indicate which statement most correctly reflects the position in regard to XYZ's reliance on estoppel: →1. XYZ will not be successful with its reliance on estoppel because estoppel is not

allowed by law in instances where the city council must carry out a statutory duty. 2. XYZ will not be successful with its reliance on estoppel because XYZ did not act to

its detriment. 3. XYZ will not be successful with its reliance on estoppel because the city council

did not make a misrepresentation. 4. XYZ will probably be successful with its reliance on estoppel. (2) Question 24 The city council of Pofadder mistakenly grants a tender to X, whereas it intended to grant it to Y. X has incurred expenses to perform in terms of the tender and raises estoppel against the council’s action to have the contract declared void. Indicate which statement most correctly reflects the position in regard to X's reliance on estoppel: 1. X will not be successful with its reliance on estoppel because estoppel is not

allowed by law in instances where the city council must carry out a statutory duty. 2. X will not be successful with its reliance on estoppel because X did not act to its

detriment. 3. X will not be successful with its reliance on estoppel because the city council did

not make a misrepresentation. →4. X will probably be successful with its reliance on estoppel. (2)



15

Question 25 X instructs Y, a trader in second hand goods, to sell his (X’s) boat. X tells Y to inform him of any offers for the boat, which X can then consider before accepting. Y ignores X’s instruction and sells the boat very cheaply to Z. X attempts to reclaim the boat on the basis that Y exceeded his authority, to which Z raises estoppel. Indicate which statement most correctly reflects the position in regard to Z's reliance on estoppel: 1. Z will not be successful with his reliance on estoppel because Y did not have the

authority to sell the boat without first consulting X. 2. Z will not be successful with his reliance on estoppel because he did not act to his

detriment. →3. Z will be successful with his reliance on estoppel because the private instructions

of a principal (X) to his representative (Y) cannot effect third parties (Z) who contract with the representative.

4. Z will be successful with his reliance on estoppel because in the circumstances X

has waived his right to lay claim to his boat with the rei vindicatio. (2)

TOTAL SECTION A : [50]

Section B follows after the Afrikaans Multiple Choice Questions



16

KIES DIE MEES KORREKTE OPSIE IN ELKE GEVAL. Die volgende feite is ter sake vir vrae 1 tot 3 A het vereis dat B 'n bedrag van R50,000 aan hom betaal wat hy van mening was B aan hom verskuldig is. B het sy rekords nagegaan en het die bedrag betaal in die bona fide geloof dat die bedrag verskuldig is ingevolge hulle kontrak. B was onbewus daarvan dat C, sy boekhouer, alreeds die bedrag 'n week van tevore betaal het by wyse van 'n elektroniese fondsoordrag na A se rekening. Ten tye van die tweede betaling was A se rekening oortrokke met 'n bedrag van R30,000 en was dit gevolglik met R20,000 in krediet na die betaling. A het R15,000 uit die rekening onttrek om sy werknemers se maandelikse lone te betaal. Hy het ook R10,000 betaal vir 'n luukse naweek nadat hy ontdek het dat sy rekening in krediet is. Vraag 1 Watter stelling beskryf die aard van B se eis teen A die beste? 1. B het 'n eis teen A gebaseer op delik as gevolg van 'n bedrieglike wanvoorstelling. 2. B het 'n kontraktuele eis teen A gebaseer op hulle kontrak. 3. B het 'n verrykingseis teen A gebaseer op die condictio causa data causa non

secuta. 4. B het 'n verrykingseis teen A gebaseer op die condictio indebiti. (2)

Vraag 2 Watter stelling ten opsigte van die vereistes vir 'n verrykingseis is korrek? 1. A is verryk ten koste van B. 2. B is verarm ten koste van die bank. 3. A is verryk ten koste van C wat die betaling gemaak het. 4. A se verryking is nie ongeregverdig nie omdat daar 'n kontrak tussen A en B

bestaan. (2)



17

Vraag 3 Watter stelling beskryf die berekening van die omvang van die verrykingseis die beste? 1. B kan 'n bedrag van R50,000 eis van A met sy verrykingsaksie. 2. B kan slegs R20,000 van A eis omdat sy rekening by die bank oortrokke was en

die bank die voordeel van die ander R30,000 ontvang het. 3. B kan slegs R40,000 eis omdat die res van die verrykingsbedrag verlore gegaan

het op die luukse vakansie. 4. B kan 'n bedrag van R25,000 eis omdat die res van die verrykingsbedrag uitgegee

is op die lone en A se vakansie. (2) Vraag 4 Om met 'n eis gebaseer op die condictio indebiti te kan slaag, moet die eiser die volgende feit(e) of vereiste(s) kan bewys. 1. Dat die verarmde party 'n onverskuldigde betaling gemaak het. 2. Dat die verryking onregmatig was. 3. Dat die dwaling van die verarmde party verskoonbaar was. 4. 1 en 3 is korrek. (2) Vraag 5 In watter een van die volgende omstandighede kan die condictio indebiti aangewend word? 1. Waar 'n bank betaling gemaak is ingevolge 'n tjek waarvan betaling afgelas

(“gestop”) is. 2. Waar 'n party bewustelik 'n betaling gemaak het wat nie verskuldig was nie, maar

onder dwang en protes. 3. Waar 'n kontrak beëindig is op grond van kontrakbreuk. 4. Waar 'n party 'n onverskuldigde bedrag betaal het in terme van 'n ongeoorloofde

kontrak. (2)



18

Die volgende feite is van belang vir vraag 6 en 7. X het 'n kontrak met Y gesluit om 'n tennisbaan teen 'n koste van R40,000 te bou op die eiendom van Z, van wie hy die eiendom huur. Dit kan aangetoon word dat die waarde van die eiendom met R20,000 verhoog is as gevolg van die verbetering. X het nou verdwyn voordat hy Y betaal het vir die werk wat gedoen is. Y wil nou 'n eis instel teen Z, die eienaar van die eiendom. Vraag 6 Watter stelling beskryf die grond waarop en die bedrag wat Y kan eis die beste? 1. Y het 'n verrykingseis teen Z vir 'n bedrag van R40,000. 2. Y het 'n kontraktuele eis teen X vir R40,000. 3. X het 'n verrykingseis teen Z vir R40,000. 4. Y het 'n verrykingseis teen Z vir R 20,000. (2) Vraag 7 Watter stelling beskryf die gesag waarop u u antwoord in vraag 6 gebaseer het die beste? 1. Ingevolge die beslissing in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) is

beslis dat Y geen eis teen Z het nie omdat Z nie ten koste van Y verryk is nie. 2. Ingevolge die beslissing in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) is

beslis dat Y 'n eis teen Z het omdat Z ten koste van Y verryk is. 3. Die beslissing in die Gouws saak is bevestig in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan

Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A). 4. Die beslissing in die Gouws saak is verwerp in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan

Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A). (2)



19

Vraag 8 G merk op dat sy buurman (H) se stoetbul ernstig siek is. H is tans op 'n staptog in Nepal en kan nie bereik word nie. G het 'n veearts ingeroep om na die bul om te sien en het sy rekening en vir die medikasie betaal. Die totale koste was R12,000. Ten spyte van die behandeling het die bul nogtans gevrek. Watter stelling beskryf die basis van G se moontlike eis teen H die beste? 1. G het geen eis teen H nie omdat die bul gevrek het en die uitgawes verspilde

uitgawes was. 2. G het 'n eis teen H ingevolge die actio negotiorum gestorum contraria vir

R12,000. 3. G het 'n eis teen H ingevolge die actio negotiorum gestorum utilis vir R12,000. 4. G se eis teen H ingevolge die actio negotiorum gestorum contraria sal faal omdat

die bul gevrek het. (2) Die volgende feite is ter sake vir Vrae 9-11. K is die eienaar van 'n plaas langs die plaas van L. K en L is onbewus daarvan dat K 'n gedeelte van L se plaas okkupeer as gevolg van die feit dat 'n heining 10 jaar gelede op die verkeerde plek opgerig is. K het die volgende verbeterings op daardie deel van die plaas aangebring: hy het (a) 'n dam gebou teen 'n koste van R30,000; (b) 'n luukse lapa langs die dam opgerig teen 'n koste van R100,000; (c) 'n boorgat gesink teen 'n koste van R20,000; (d) vrugtebome geplant teen 'n koste van R15,000; en (e) mielies geplant wat byna gereed is om geoes te word teen 'n koste van R60,000 (waarde R120,000). Gedurende sy okkupasie van die grond het hy mielies geoes ter waarde van R300,000 (insetkoste R250,000) en vrugte geoes van die vrugtebome ter waarde van R55,000. L het nou bewus geword van die ware toedrag van sake en eis dat K die grond moet verlaat. Vraag 9 Watter stelling beskryf die aard van K's se besit of okkupasie van die grond die beste? 1. K is 'n bona fide okkupeerder van die grond. 2. K is 'n mala fide okkupeerder van die grond. 3. K is 'n bona fide possessor van die grond. 4. K is 'n regmatige okkupeerder van die grond. (2)



20

Vraag 10 Watter stelling beskryf die aard en omvang van K se eis, indien enige, die beste? 1. K het 'n verrykingseis vir al die verbeterings wat hy op die grond van L aangebring

het. 2. K het 'n verrykingseis vir die volle bedrag van al die noodsaaklike en nuttige

uitgawes wat hy aangegaan het. 3. K het 'n verrykingseis vir die noodsaaklike en nuttige uitgawes wat hy aangegaan

het tot die mate dat daardie uitgawes die waarde van L se grond verhoog het. 4. K het geen eis vir die mielies wat nog nie geoes is nie omdat dit nou aan L

behoort. (2) Vraag 11 Watter stelling beskryf die bedrae wat in verrekening gebring kan word teen K se eis, indien enige, die beste? 1. L is nie geregtig om enige bedrae in verrekening te bring teen K se eis nie. 2. L is geregtig om die verrykingseis teen hom te verminder deur die waarde van K

se okkupasie van die grond daarteen te verreken. 3. L is geregtig om die verrykingseis teen hom te verminder deur die waarde van die

mielies en vrugte wat deur K geoes, is af te trek, asook die waarde van K se okkupasie daarteen te verreken.

4. L is geregtig om die verrykingseis teen hom te verminder deur die waarde van die

mielies wat deur K geoes is, af te trek minus die produksiekoste. (2)



21

Vraag 12 X en Y het 'n kontrak gesluit ingevolge waarvan Y sekere bouwerk vir X moet verrig teen betaling van R200,000. Die bouwerk word nie volledig gedoen nie en X kontrakteer met Z om die bouwerk te voltooi teen betaling van R30,000. X weier nou om vir Y te betaal omdat hy nie sy kontrak voltooi het nie. Dui aan watter een van die volgende Y se moontlike eis die beste beskrywe: 1. Y het geen eis vir die bouwerk nie omdat hy kontrakbreuk gepleeg het. 2. Y het 'n kontraktuele eis vir 'n verminderde bedrag (R170,000) omdat X die

gebrekkige bouwerk aanvaar het en benut. 3. Y het 'n verrykingseis vir 'n verminderde bedrag wat bereken word met verwysing

na die bedrag waarmee X se grond inderdaad in waarde verhoog het as gevolg van die bouwerk.

4. Y is geregtig op die volle kontraksprys al het hy nie sy kontrak volledig uitgevoer

nie. (2) Vraag 13 In watter een van die volgende omstandighede kan die condictio causa data causa non secuta ingestel word? 1 Waar ’n eis deur ’n onbetaalde krediteur teen die begunstigde van ’n bestorwe

boedel ingestel word. 2 Waar ’n kontraktuele waarborg nie nagekom is nie. 3 Waar ingevolge ’n ongeoorloofde ooreenkoms gepresteer is. 4 Waar ’n ontbindende voorwaarde vervul is. (2) Vraag 14 In watter een van die volgende omstandighede kan die condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam ingestel word? 1 Waar ’n eis deur ’n onbetaalde krediteur teen die begunstigde van ’n bestorwe

boedel ingestel word. 2 Waar ’n kontraktuele waarborg nie nagekom is nie. 3 Waar ingevolge ’n ongeoorloofde ooreenkoms gepresteer is. 4 Waar ’n ontbindende voorwaarde vervul is. (2)



22

Vraag 15 In watter een van die volgende omstandighede kan die condictio indebiti ingestel word? 1 Waar ’n eis deur ’n onbetaalde krediteur teen die begunstigde van ’n bestorwe

boedel ingestel word. 2 Waar ’n kontraktuele waarborg nie nagekom is nie. 3 Waar ingevolge ’n ongeoorloofde ooreenkoms gepresteer is. 4 Waar ’n ontbindende voorwaarde vervul is. (2) Vraag 16 Dui aan watter een van die volgende NIE 'n vereiste is vir 'n geslaagde beroep op estoppel nie: 1. Daar moes 'n wesenlike wanvoorstelling plaasgevind het. 2. Die wanvoorstelling moes nadelige optrede aan die kant van die

estoppelopwerper veroorsaak het. 3. Die estoppelontkenner moes die wanvoorstelling opsetlik gemaak het om die

estoppelopwerper te mislei. 4. Die opwerp van die estoppel moet regtens geoorloof wees. (2)



23

Die volgende feitestel het betrekking op vrae 17-21. A verkoop sy televisiestel aan B vir R2,000. Die kontrak bepaal dat eiendomsreg van die stel eers op B oorgaan nadat die laaste paaiement van R200 betaal is. A gee 'n briefie aan B waarin die volgende staan: "Hiermee bevestig ek, A, dat ek Sony TV-stel no 123321 aan B verkoop het." Na verloop van 6 maande en betaling van R1,200 wil B die stel aan C verkoop. Hy wys die briefie wat A aan hom gegee het aan C. C wat baie versigtig is, bel vir A en A bevestig dat hy die stel aan B verkoop het. C koop die stel by B vir R1,500. Daarna versuim B om enige verdere paaiemente aan A te betaal. A eis nou die TV-stel van C terug met die rei vindicatio. Vraag 17 Watter stelling gee die mees korrekte uiteensetting van die huidige regsposisie. 1. A het 'n wanvoorstelling teenoor C gepleeg deur die briefie wat misleidend is aan

B te oorhandig, terwyl hy moes besef het dat B die briefie kan misbruik ingevolge die beslissing in Grosvenor Motors (Potchefstroom) Ltd v Douglas 1956 3 SA 420 (A).

2. A het 'n wanvoorstelling teenoor C gepleeg deur die briefie aan B te oorhandig en

te versuim om vir C in te lig dat die TV-stel nog nie afbetaal is nie op die tydstip toe C hom gebel het.

3. 'n Wanvoorstelling kan nie deur stilswye gemaak word nie. 4. 'n Wanvoorstelling kan nie deur gedrag veroorsaak word nie. (2) Vraag 18 Dui aan watter stelling die posisie ten opsigte van die skuldvereiste die beste uiteensit. 1. 'n Estoppelopwerper moet ten minste nalatigheid beweer en bewys in gevalle

waar die verlies van eiendomsreg ter sprake is. 2. 'n Estoppelopwerper moet ten minste opset beweer en bewys in gevalle waar die

verlies van eiendomsreg ter sprake is. 3. Skuld is nooit 'n vereiste vir 'n geslaagde beroep op estoppel nie. 4. Skuld is in alle gevalle 'n vereiste vir 'n geslaagde beroep op estoppel. (2)



24

Vraag 19 Dui aan watter stelling die regsposisie met betrekking tot kousaliteit die beste uiteensit: 1. Die estoppelontkenner se wanvoorstelling moes die enigste oorsaak van die

estoppelopwerper se nadelige optrede gewees het. 2. Ingevolge die "proximate cause" toets soos dit deur die howe toegepas word,

moes die estoppelontkenner se wanvoorstelling die enigste oorsaak van die estoppelopwerper se nadelige optrede gewees het.

3. Die "proximate cause" toets soos dit deur die howe toegepas word, sluit net

feitelike kousaliteit in en nie juridiese kousaliteit nie. 4. Ingevolge die "proximate cause" toets soos dit deur die howe toegepas word, is dit

voldoende dat die wanvoorstelling van die estoppelontkenner 'n wesenlike bydrae tot die estoppelopwerper se nadelige optrede gemaak het. (2)

Vraag 20 Dui aan watter stelling die regsposisie met betrekking tot nadeel die beste weergee. 1. Dit is voldoende om te bewys dat die estoppelopwerper sy regsposisie tot sy

nadeel verander het selfs al kan konkrete skade nie bewys word nie. 2. Dit is nie voldoende om te bewys dat die estoppelopwerper sy regsposisie tot sy

nadeel verander het indien konkrete skade nie bewys kan word nie. 3. Die estoppelopwerper moet in alle gevalle bewys dat hy reeds skade gely het as

gevolg van die wanvoorstelling. 4. Die estoppelopwerper moet bewys dat hy of vermoënskade of nie-vermoënskade

gely het. (2)



25

Vraag 21 Dui aan watter stelling die mees korrekte aanduiding gee of C se beroep op estoppel behoort te slaag. 1. C het nie tot sy nadeel opgetree deur die kontrak met B te sluit nie, omdat hy

steeds 'n eis vir kontrakbreuk teen B sal hê. 2. C het nie tot sy nadeel opgetree nie omdat hy nie enige vermoënskade skade ly nie. 3. C het tot sy nadeel opgetree omdat hy die kontrak met B gesluit het en B betaal

het terwyl hy nou die TV-stel moontlik moet prysgee. 4. C kan hom hoegenaamd nie op estoppel beroep in gevalle waar eiendomsreg ter

sprake is nie. (2) Vraag 22 Dui aan watter stelling die mees korrekte is met betrekking tot die gebruik van estoppel by kontraksluiting. 1. Ingevolge die regspraak kan estoppel nie by kontraksluiting aangewend word om

'n party gebonde te hou aan die wanvoorstelling wat hy gemaak het ten opsigte van sy bedoeling om te kontrakteer nie.

2. Dit is ongewens om estoppel by gevalle van dwaling te gebruik om 'n kontrak tot

stand te bring omdat dit 'n skyn of fiksie tot stand bring wat net tussen die partye geld.

3. In Sonap Petroleum (SA) Pty Ltd v Papadogianus 1992 3 SA 234 (A) het die hof

aanvaar dat estoppel soms noodsaaklik is om te gebruik in gevalle van dwaling. 4. Estoppel is nog nooit in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg aangewend om 'n oënskynlike

kontrak in stand te hou nie. (2)



26

Vraag 23 Die stadsraad van Kaapstad het 'n statutêre plig om eiendomsbelasting teen bepaalde koerse te hef. Vanweë 'n rekenaarfout het die stadsraad die afgelope twee jaar slegs sowat die helfte van die korrekte bedrag van XYZ (Edms) Bpk gehef. Die stadsraad het die fout nou agtergekom en eis onmiddellike betaling van R500,000 van XYZ. XYZ verweer hulself teen die eis met 'n beroep op estoppel. Hulle voer aan dat hulle in die afgelope twee jaar meer dividende aan hulle aandeelhouers uitbetaal het, as wat hulle sou gedoen het indien die stadsraad die korrekte hoeveelheid belasting gehef het. Dui aan watter stelling die mees korrekte is met betrekking tot XYZ se beroep op estoppel. 1. XYZ sal nie slaag met 'n beroep op estoppel nie omdat estoppel nie regtens

toelaatbaar opgewerp kan word waar daar 'n statutêre plig op die stadsraad rus nie.

2. XYZ sal nie slaag met 'n beroep op estoppel nie omdat XYZ nie tot sy nadeel

gehandel het as gevolg van die stadsraad se wanvoorstelling nie. 3. XYZ sal nie slaag met 'n beroep op estoppel nie omdat die stadsraad nie 'n

wanvoorstelling gepleeg het nie. 4. XYZ sal waarskynlik slaag met 'n beroep op estoppel. (2) Vraag 24 Die stadsraad van Pofadder ken foutiewelik ‘n tender toe aan X, terwyl dit bedoel het om die tender aan Y toe te ken. X gaan onkostes aan om ingevolge die tender te presteer en werp estoppel op teen die stadsraad se aksie om die kontrak nietig te verklaar. Dui aan watter stelling die mees korrekte is met betrekking tot X se beroep op estoppel: 1. X sal nie slaag met 'n beroep op estoppel nie omdat estoppel nie regtens

toelaatbaar opgewerp kan word waar daar 'n statutêre plig op die stadsraad rus nie.

2. X sal nie slaag met 'n beroep op estoppel nie omdat X nie tot sy nadeel gehandel

het as gevolg van die stadsraad se wanvoorstelling nie. 3. X sal nie slaag met 'n beroep op estoppel nie omdat die stadsraad nie 'n

wanvoorstelling gepleeg het nie. 4. X sal waarskynlik slaag met 'n beroep op estoppel. (2)



27

Vraag 25 X gee Y, ‘n handelaar in tweedehandse goedere, opdrag om sy (X se) boot te verkoop. X vertel Y om hom in te lig van enige aanbiedinge vir die boot, wat X kan oorweeg voordat hy aanvaar. Y ignorer X se opdrag en verkoop die boot spot goedkoop aan Z. X poog om die boot terug te eis op grond daarvan dat Y sy volmag oorskry het, waarteen Z estoppel opwerp. Dui aan watter stelling die mees korrekte is met betrekking tot Z se beroep op estoppel: 1. X sal nie slaag met 'n beroep op estoppel nie omdat Y nie die nodige magtiging

gehad het om die boot te verkoop sonder om X eers te raadpleeg nie. 2. X sal nie slaag met 'n beroep op estoppel nie omdat hy nie tot sy nadeel gehandel

het nie. 3. Z sal slaag met 'n beroep op estoppel omdat die private opdragte van ‘n prinsipaal

(X) aan sy verteenwoordiger (Y) nie derdes (Z) kan bind wat met die verteenwoordiger kontrakte aangaan nie.

4. Z sal slaag met 'n beroep op estoppel omdat X in die omstandighede afstand van

sy reg gedoen het om die boot met die rei vindicatio terug te eis. (2)

TOTAAL AFDELING A: [50]

SECTION B / AFDELING B

STUDY GUIDE 1: ENRICHMENT LIABILITY

QUESTION 1 Write a critical discussion on the existence of a general enrichment action in South African law. (10) Answer (mark fairly strictly) Study Unit 15:

1. Introduction [1] 2. Common Law [4]

De Vos

Scholtens

Roman-Dutch practices

Obs Tum



28

3. Nortje v Pool [5]

Discussion

Majority decision

Minority decision

No general action

Possible developments 4. Effects of Nortje v Pool [4] 5. Wilkens case [3] 6. Blesbok case [3]

[10] QUESTION 2 Company A is under the mistaken impression that it owes R50,000 to Company B and pays this amount. However, the amount has already been paid to B by A's bookkeeper. B, who is unaware that the amount has been paid twice has used the money to pay one of its own creditors R25,000. It has also paid a bonus of R10,000 to each of its two directors. A now wants to claim the money from B. Advise A on the relevant action that it should use, the requirements for that action as well as on any defences that may be raised by B. (10) Answer (mark fairly strictly) Study Unit 3:

Recognition of issue [2]

Undue Payment

Identification of action [1]

Condictio Indebiti

Requirements for condiction [5]

Payment must not be due

Fault must not be present

Excusable mistake

Case law (especially Willis Faber Enthoven)

Remedies /Defences

Defence of non-enrichment – enrichment has fallen away [1]

General rule when non-enrichment applies [2]

Circumstances where defence of non-enrichment will fail [2]

Calculation/identifying of what can be claimed

Payment of debt – yes (expenses saved) [1]

Bonus of directors – no (expense which would normally not have been incurred) [1]

[10] QUESTION 3 X is an employee of Company Y. X is paid a monthly salary of R30,000 which is payable at the end of the month. During July 2011 X receives a very lucrative offer from



29

Company Z provided he can start work immediately. X does not return to his employment with Y after 20 July 2011. Y now refuses to pay X anything for his employment during July 2011. Briefly advise X whether he has any claim against Y, and if so discuss the nature of the claim as well as the amount that he can claim. (5) Answer (mark fairly lightly – but answer must remain relevant) Study Unit 13:

1. Identification of problem [1] 2. General requirements [2] 3. Spencer v Gostelow discussion [3] 4. Pro rata repayment [1] 5. Deserter [1]

6.Criticism [2] [5] STUDY GUIDE 2: ESTOPPEL QUESTION 4 Write a critical discussion on whether patrimonial loss is a requirement in the South African law of estoppel. In your answer you must refer to relevant case law. (10) Answer (mark fairly strictly) Study Unit 5:

1.Prejudice general requirement for estoppel – change of position to detriment by acting or not acting as a result of the misrepresentation [2]

2.Discussion of two approaches to prejudice: 3.Strict approach – (De Wet) patrimonial prejudice [1]

Test for patrimonial prejudice – comparing of actual patrimonial position and hypothetical position misled party would have been in if he’she had not been misled. [2]

Jonker case [1]

Bauman case – criticism [2] 4.Wider test for prejudice – potential loss [2]

Glisson case [2]

Autolec [2]

Change in legal position [1]

Breet [2]

Mthanti [2] 5.Other views – Van der Walt, Van der Merwe and Van Huyssteen [2-3]

[10]



30

QUESTION 5 A takes his car to B, who sells second-hand cars, to have his car valued. The car is parked on B’s showroom floor where it is left for three days. In this period one of the sales staff, X, who believed the vehicle to be part of the stock, sold the vehicle to C for cash. A now claims the vehicle from C with a rei vindicatio. Advise C with reference to relevant case law. (10) Answer (mark fairly strictly) Study Unit 3:

1. Identification of problem – whether estoppel will succeed [1] 2. Khota case [3] 3. Discussion or listing of all elements [2] 4. Discussion on misrepresentation [3] 5. Discussion Grosvenor Motors [3] 6. Fault requirement at rei vindicatio cases [3] 7. Conclusion

No estoppel

No misrepresentation [1]

No fault [1] [10] QUESTION 6 Answer (mark fairly lightly – but answer must remain relevant) Study Unit 7:

Write a brief note on the requirement that estoppel must be allowed by law. Provide some practical examples from case law to illustrate this requirement. (5)

1. General principle discussed [2] 2. Hire purchase examples and discussion [2] 3. Trust Bank v Eksteen [2] 4. Own relevant examples [2 marks each]

Case law examples: Brady, Long, Hoisain, Ebrahim, Fuls, Hauptfleisch, Strydom, Rand Wholesale

[5]

TOTAL SECTION A + B [100] ©

UNISA 2011



31

Date post:	17-Sep-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Hierdie vraestel bestaan uit 37 bladsye STUDENT NUMBER · The unique number to be filled-in on the...

Documents