Scribd
Upload
17 views

PVL3701 - Corrections Study Guide

Uploaded by

mngomazama67
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
17 views

PVL3701 - Corrections Study Guide

Uploaded by

mngomazama67
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Property Law

PVL3701
Department of Private Law

Study Guide corrections


CORRECTIONS – STUDY GUIDE

(i) The remark on page 21 of the Study Guide should read: “This answer can be adapted
to answer question 1(a) in section 4 above ...”

(ii) The statement on page 23 on the Study Guide that “Movable things are things that can
be moved from one place to another without being damaged or losing their identity, for
example a choir, a car, a shirt and money”. Instead of “choir”, it should read “chair”.

(iii) On page 43 there is a reference to the Physical Planning Act 125 of 1991 and the
Development Facilitation Act 67 of 1995. Please note that both these acts were repealed
by the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA). See
pages 268-270 in the Study Guide for a discussion on SPLUMA.

(iv) On page 127 of the Study Guide Question 1, the last sentence should read: Which action
is applicable, what are the requirements and will S succeed? Refer to case law.

(v) On page 199 there is a list of the remedies available to a servitude holder. Please note
that the second remedy, actio negatoria, is a remedy available to an owner against the
servitude holder.

(vi) In diagram 10 on page 153 it is stated that “a lawful holder has a real right”. Please note
that a lawful holder does not always have a real right. For example, a person who controls
a car which he/she borrowed from a friend is a lawful holder but does not have a real
right over the car. A pledgee, however, is a good example of a person who is a lawful
holder, but also has a limited real security right over the pledged thing (see Study Guide
page 215 para 2.4.1). Also, in diagram 10 under mala fide unlawful holder, it was
incorrectly captured as “controls the thing knowing he/she doesn’t unlawfully and is aware
of that.” It must read “controls the thing knowing he/she does so unlawfully and is aware
of that.”

(vii) The suggested answer to Question 4 on page 240 of the Study Guide is the following:

2
For a successful reliance on his lien, Z must prove that he was in control (1) of the car and that
he incurred expenses (1) in regard to the car. Z complies with both of these requirements; the
only problem is the fact that he incurred these expenses in terms of his agreement with T.
However, Z can rely on his lien even against the owner with whom he had no agreement (1)
since enrichment liens (1) are limited real rights (1) which are based on the principle of unjust
enrichment. (1)

Two types of enrichment liens are distinguished, namely salvage and improvement liens. When
someone incurs expenses that are necessary for the preservation of a thing (such as the
installation of the driveshaft), (1) we are dealing with a salvage lien (1) and Z is entitled to retain
the car until he is compensated for the amount by which the owner (Q) was enriched or he
himself impoverished, whichever is the lesser. (1) It may therefore be less than R2600-00, (1)
but normally it is the amount of the owner’s enrichment.

When someone incurs expenses which are not necessary for the preservation of the thing, but
which increase the market value (such as the device which improves petrol consumption), (1)
we are dealing with an improvement lien (1) and Z is entitled to retain the car until he is
compensated for the amount by which the market value (1) of the car has been increased.

For the luxurious improvements which are prompted by a mere whim or caprice of a person
(such as the replacement of the seat covers with leather seat covers), Z cannot claim
compensation from Q and is therefore not entitled to a lien either. (1)

Therefore, Z is only entitled to retain the car until Q has compensated him for an amount of
more or less R2600-00 for the crankshaft, together with the amount by which the market value
of the car was increased by the installation of the device to improve petrol consumption. (1)

(viii) On page 263 under subheading (iii) compensation is paid, the current Bill is the
Expropriation Bill of 2020. The Bill was adopted by National Assembly in 2022 and has
provisions on how compensation must be paid.

©
UNISA 2024

You might also like