G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is currently on a hiking trip outside the country 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. G is a meddlesome neighbour and H has previously warned him not to do anything on his farm under any circumstances, but rather to call K, if G should notice any problem. G did not bother to call K.
Which statement best explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?

Question

G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is currently on a hiking trip outside the country 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. G is a meddlesome neighbour and H has previously warned him not to do anything on his farm under any circumstances, but rather to call K, if G should notice any problem. G did not bother to call K.

Which statement best explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?

Accepted Answer

G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.

Answer

G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.

Answer

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

Answer

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

Answer

G's claim against H in terms of the  actio negotiorum gestorum contraria  will fail because the  bull died.

Crowdly

G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour...

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