Ratio Upheld Appeal the CI was not applicable C was not a party to the

Ratio upheld appeal the ci was not applicable c was

This preview shows page 12 - 16 out of 18 pages.

his only interest was to sell it and mortgage bond was paid. Ratio: Upheld Appeal the CI was not applicable. C was not a party to the contractor’s contract and C did not have knowledge of the construction of the pool and C was not enriched at the expense of A, but at the expense of B because the enrichment flowed from the performance by A in contract with B, a performance owed to B. Critique: writers such as Van der Walt are of the opinion that the causality requirement was met when there was a direct transfer of assets from A’s estate to C’s.
Image of page 12
3. Enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff 2. Buzzard Electrical: Facts: The owner of the property contracted with B to improve his property, B subcontracted with A to do the work, A did the work and later relied on the liability of the owner on grounds of unjustified enrichment when A was not paid. Ratio: The agreement between the owner and B was the primary source of the performance of the work, no contractual relationship between A and the owner. The owner received no more than what he was contracted to with B, therefore the enrichment was not sine causa . A could enforce his contractual rights against B and if B turned out to be insolvent, it is an unhappy coincidence but did not render the owner’s enrichment unjustified.
Image of page 13
3. Enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff 3. Brooklyn House Furnishers v Knoetze: Facts: B bought furniture on hire-purchase from C (instalment agreement). C remains the owner of the furniture until final instalment is paid. The contract further prohibited B from storing the furniture with anybody but C. B did not adhere to this storage provision and was in breach of contract. B entered into a storage contract with A. C cancelled the instalment contract and instituted the rei vindicatio against A (bona fide possessor to return his furniture). A refused claiming an enrichment lien, that ito his storage contract with B, he had a lien over the furniture, until he was paid for the storage. [Rei vindicatio failed] Appellate Division upheld the enrichment retention lien of A on grounds that (C) Owner did benefit from the storage and safety/care of the furniture by A and A incurred expenses to do so. This gave rise to a right of retention until compensated. “At the expense of” req was fulfilled. Confirms the existence of an enrichment lien until compensated. Add reading: Hubby’s Investments v Lifetime Properties – Read through – not binding – relies on Buzzard case Add reading: ABSA Bank v Stander – not binding
Image of page 14
4. Enrichment must be sine causa/ unjustified See academics opinions on the role of this requirement (Page 19 - 21 Study Guide) – Discussion – policy considerations/boni mores/naturalistic notions of fairness/trade and commerce – value of an object and personal right to performance/corrective justice.
Image of page 15
Image of page 16

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 18 pages?

  • Fall '18
  • Law, SA Law

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture