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 in Pretoria. 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.
Which statement best explains the authority to substantiate the ground on which and the amount that Y can claim?

Question

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 in Pretoria. 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.

Which statement best explains the authority to substantiate the ground on which and the amount that Y can claim?

Accepted Answer

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 his expense.

Answer

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 his expense.

Answer

The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in  Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts  Avenue Investments  1996 4 SA 19 (A).

Answer

The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in  Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue  Investments  1996 4 SA 19 (A).

Answer

The decision in the  Gouws  case was confirmed in  Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze  & Sons  1970 3 SA 264 (A).

Crowdly

X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 o...

Хочете миттєвий доступ до всіх перевірених відповідей на mymodules.dtls.unisa.ac.za?