• Nortjé v Pool 1966 3 SA 96(A). • Quarrying Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd v John Viol (Pvt) Ltd 1985 3 SA 575 (ZHC). • Standard Kredietkorporasie Bpk v JOT Motors (Edms) Bpk h/a Vaal Motors 1989 1 SA 223(A). • Business Aviation Corporation v Rand Airport Holdings  SCA 72 (RSA): par 37 and 45. FOR CASES OF LOCATIO CONDUCTIO OPERIS • BK Tooling (edms) Bpk v Scope Precision Engineering (Edms) Bpk 1979 1 SA 391(A). • Hauman v Nortje 1914 AD 293.
LCSP 4814 83 FOR LOCATIO CONDUCTIO OPERARUM CASES • Spencer v Gostelow 1920 AD 617, 631-632, 635-637 1. AD HOC EXTENSION: ACTIO NEGOTIORUM GESTORUM UTILIS Distinguish between the “ordinary” action for the administration of another’s affairs (the socalled actio negotiorum gestorum contraria) which is classified as a quasi-contractual action (or sui generis – an appellation preferred by Casebook: Enrichment(3) 181-182); and the abnormal administration action (the so-called actio negotiorum gestorum utilis). Jacques du Plessis (“Enrichment”: 231 and 254) calls the latter enrichment action the quasi negotiorum gestio and has to be read carefully not to be misread or confused with the quasi- contractual one. The former is not an enrichment action, because the gestor may claim all his or her necessary and useful expenses incurred reasonably on behalf and in the interest of the dominus (see Nodada Funeral Service CC v The Master & Others 2003 4 SA 422(Tk) on the existence of a so-called actio funeraria). The claim will be sustained even though the gestor failed to administer successfully. In contrast, the utilis action is an enrichment action, because the gestor’s claim will be limited to the extent of the enrichment of the dominus at the time of the institution of the action. The utilis (as “impure”management of another’s affairs) is applicable in two instances, namely unauthorised expenditure (Jacques du Plessis “Enrichment”: 268-307) and the payment of another’s debt (Jacques du Plessis “Enrichment”: 310-330). This form of unauthorised management is classified by some of the writers (Visser and Du Plessis) as “imposed enrichment”. This in contrast with transfer (“giving”) – where some form of cooperation is needed, and infringement on (“taking” from) another’s property. The utilis has played a creative role, but has at the same time been an artificial measure to achieve the goal of ad hoc extending enrichment – especially in cases of imposed enrichment. In addition, the utilis finds itself in an uneasy relationship with the proprietary remedy dealing with salvage and improvement (see Jacques du Plessis “Enrichment”: 254 lines 16-21; 260-261). To be successful with the contraria, the gestor must prove several requirements, while circumstances will dictate when the utilis will lie (see Sonnekus “Unjustified Enrichment” 167-183 and 192-218; Jacques du Plessis “Enrichment”: 255-260 for a discussion of these circumstances).
LCSP 4814 84 Diagrammatically the differences can be expressed as follows: Actio negotiorum gestorum contraria (Normal administration action) (No enrichment action) Actio negotiorum gestorum utilis (Abnormal administration action) (Enrichment action)
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 126 pages?