Nortje Case 1966 (A)
RATIO:
No unjustified enrichment cause of action in that it did not fall within the circumstances of
any of the recognised classical actions for enrichment liability. Roman-Dutch law refers only to
compensation for tangible
(physical) improvements to property. Therefore could not recognize GEA.
The court did state
BUT 'in principle there is no reason for limiting the rule to such cases'
.
Distinction:
A GEA is not concerned with tangible/or non-tangible distinctions in the type of
property improvement, with a GEA the means of enrichment can vary. The GEA considers the
extent
of the enrichment in existence
and
the extent of the impoverishment
.
Blesbok 1991 (T)
FACTS:
The plaintiff
(estate agent)
claimed an amount of R1 316 from the defendant, alleging that it
had carried out a mandate
received from the defendant to obtain a valuation
of a certain farm and
business. Argued it was a term of the agreement that the defendant would pay the plaintiff's costs
in connection with the execution of the mandate (law of contract). In the alternative it was alleged
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 7 pages?
- Fall '18
- Common Law
