Shocking Case of Unjustified Enrichment That Professionals Cannot Ignore
By Urayayi Chikwetu
Introduction
The article for this week is based on a very short but important scenario. The characters in this case are fictional and you can substitute these with your own characters and professionals. Imagine you are plumber based in Glennorah suburb and you entered into agreement with Mr Gudo to fix the toilets at the apartment he stays. The agreement stipulates that you will fix and supply the materials you are going to use in the repair of the toilets. You obtained the quotation from the suppliers and Mr Gudo agreed to a quotation amounting to USD500. You also agreed with Mr Gudo that you bill a professional fee of USD 1500. You carried out the repairs successfully . In the meantime, Mr Gudo disappeared and is nowhere to be found. It turned out that the apartment where you fixed the toilets is owned by Mr Bere and Mr Gudo was a tenant. How must you proceed in that situation? Is it possible to claim anything from Mr Bere? The discussion below will provide an answer the question.
1. The law
Which area of law is pertinent to the facts stated above? The law of unjustified enrichment is applicable in this case. The most intriguing question is whether you can sue Mr. Bere for unjustifiable enrichment. In other words, the solution to your question may be established by looking at the requirements that an unjustified enrichment claim must meet. The prerequisites are addressed in turn below.
1.1 The defendant must be enriched
Enrichment can take the form of an increase in the defendant's assets that would not have occurred if the enriching fact had not occurred; a non-decrease in his or her assets where a decrease would have occurred if the enriching fact had not occurred and a decrease in liabilities that would not have occurred .The enrichment must still exist in the enriched party's patrimony at the time the claim is submitted. The enrichment may consist of the thing or value received, such as the painting transferred or the money paid, or of its substitute value, such as the painting being sold or the money being used to buy anything. In our case repair work is still at the apartment owned by MR Bere and his assets did not decrease when they would have decreased if he has purchased the consumables himself and has hired the plumber to do the work done by you. Mr Bere’s estate has been enriched.
1.2 The plaintiff must be impoverished
The quantum of the plaintiff's claim is the amount by which he or she has been impoverished or the amount by which the defendant has been enriched , whichever is smaller. This means that every enrichment case must include an investigation not just into the extent of the defendant's enrichment but also into the extent of the plaintiff's impoverishment. Such impoverishment might be caused by a decrease or non-decrease in assets or by an increase or non-decrease in liabilities. The standards that apply in determining the defendant's enrichment also apply in determining the plaintiff's impoverishment. In this case you bought the materials you used to repair the toilets , this have the effect of reducing your assets since you bought these with your own resources .At the same time, you used your professional skills and time to repair the toilets and the service have a value which must have increased your estate but this has not materialised .
1.3 The defendant’s enrichment must have been at the expense of the plaintiff
It is not enough for a defendant to have been enriched while the plaintiff has been impoverished to be found to be liable for enrichment. There must also be a causal link between the enrichment and the impoverishment, as shown by the defendant's enrichment occurring at the expense of the plaintiff. This criterion is usually easy to meet; in most circumstances, the causal link is evident.However, problems have developed in what are referrred to as examples of ''indirect enrichment'' .These are situations in which A and B enter into a contract under which A performs for B but C benefits from the performance. In Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 653 (T) with the similar facts as ours , the court held that C had been enriched at B’s expense and not at A’s. In other words if we are to apply this decision to our facts , Mr Bere has been enriched at the expense of Mr Gudo not at your expense .Academics do not share the same view on the position taken by the court here. Some believe that the enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff while others believe it wasn’t .
1.4 The enrichment must have been sine causa or unjustified
If simply being aware that one person was enriched at the expense of another formed the basis for an enrichment case, the idea of liability would be so broad that it would put a halt to all economic transactions because no one would be permitted to profit at the expense of another. As a result, a limiting factor is required to limit liability to circumstances where it would be unfair to enable a person to keep benefits earned at the expense of another. The condition that the enrichment be unjustified (sine causa) is a limiting factor. Enrichment is unjustified when there is no sufficient legal ground for the transfer of value from one estate to the other or for the retention of such value. From the facts , the enrichment is not based on any sound legal ground . It is sine causa.
2.0 Conclusion
While the three of the requirements are favourable to you, the requirement that the enrichment to the defendant must be at the expense of the plaintiff is not met. Accordingly,your claim against Mr Bere will not succeed. It is crucial for professionals like builders, plumbers , electricians , carpenters among others to be on guard when rendering services involving tenants .
Urayayi Chikwetu is a registered Legal Practitioner and can be contacted on 0713 569 986
Disclaimer :The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. This is not legal advice. Specialist legal advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.