Remote Lecture True and False

Question 1

According to our law, it is prima facie wrongful for a person to cause pure economic loss to another by a negligent positive act.

Answer 1

False, it is prima facie lawful

Question 2

According to our law, the fact that a person caused pure economic loss to another by a negligent positive act is an insufficient reason for the conduct to be judged wrongful – however, the combination of this fact with certain further facts may be a sufficient reason for the conduct to be judged wrongful.

Answer 2

True

Question 3

Our law has identified the following fact as a further fact the combination whereof with the fact that a person caused pure economic loss by a negligent positive act is a sufficient reason for the conduct to be judged wrongful: the fact that, if the pure-economic-loss causing conduct in question were to be judged wrongful, it would place an undue or unfair burden upon the person who caused the loss – because, for example, he could not have protected himself against the possibility of being held liable for it by making a disclaimer.

Answer 3

False , sufficient reason to be judged lawful

Question 4

Our law has identified the following fact as a further fact the combination whereof with the fact that a person caused pure economic loss by a negligent positive act is a sufficient reason for the conduct to be judged wrongful: the fact that the person suffering the loss had been vulnerable to the risk of that loss because he could not readily protect himself against it by contractual (or other) means.

Answer 4

false

Question 5

Our law has identified, as a reason for negligently caused pure economic loss to be judged lawful, even if there were sufficient reason for it to be judged wrongful, the following fact: the fact that, if the pure-economic-loss causing conduct in question were to be judged wrongful, it would establish a rule that might be inconvenient to administer.

Answer 5

true

Question 6

Our law has identified, as a reason for negligently caused pure economic loss to be judged lawful, even if there were sufficient reason for it to be judged wrongful, the following fact: the fact that, even if the pure-economic-loss causing conduct in question were not to be judged wrongful, the person harmed by that pure-economic-loss causing conduct would still have an alternative (adequate and satisfactory) remedy available to him or her.

Answer 6

true (Lillicrap) even if it were to be judged wrongful , it is not wrongful because there is a contractual remedy

Question 7

Our law has identified, as a reason for negligently caused pure economic loss to be judged lawful, even if there were sufficient reason for it to be judged wrongful, the following fact: the fact that the loss was caused by an attorney to someone who had deposited money in the attorney’s trust account, because the attorney had negligently dealt with that money.

Answer 7

false this is a reason for it to be judged wrongful

Question 8

An example of an exclusionary rule applicable to pure economic loss is the rule that it is not wrongful for a person to cause pure economic loss to another by negligently and wrongfully causing physical harm to the person or property of a third party.

Answer 8

true

Question 9

In the case of Trustees, Two Oceans Aquarium Trust v Kantey & Templer, the Supreme Court of Appeal found for the appellants on the basis that, contrary to what the Court a quo had held, the claim in question was based on physical damage to property rather than being a claim for pure economic loss.

Answer 9

False, the court did not fail in favour of the appellant

Question 10

In the case of Trustees, Two Oceans Aquarium Trust v Kantey & Templer, the Supreme Court of Appeal overruled the Appellate Division’s decision in Lillicrap, Wassenaar and Partners v Pilkington Brothers.

Answer 10

False, the further facts are diff , used Lillicrap reasoning but different outcome, there was no contract at the time

Question 11

If the plaintiff in a case alleges that the defendant caused her harm by his negligent omission, but fails to allege that any further fact (such as prior positive conduct creating a new source of danger) obtains, the court can find that the omission in question was not wrongful by relying on the law alone, without exercising any discretion.

Answer 11

true but also false?

Question 12

If the plaintiff in a case alleges that the defendant caused her pure economic loss by his negligent act, but fails to allege that any further fact or facts (such as that the defendant’s act took the form of a misstatement made in response to a serious request in a business context and relating to a matter in respect of which the defendant had professed special expertise) obtains, the court can find that the omission in question was wrongful by relying on the law alone, without exercising any discretion.

Answer 12

False

Question 13

Over the past four decades, the South African courts have repeatedly endorsed the proposition that a negligent harm-causing omission is to be judged wrongful if and only if it is reasonable, or is not contrary to policy, or is required by the legal convictions of the community.

Answer 13

False, whether the imposition of liability is reasonable and not the conduct itself

Question 14

Over the past four decades, the South African courts have repeatedly endorsed the proposition that negligent conduct causing pure economic loss is to be judged wrongful if and only if the imposition of liability for it is reasonable, or is not contrary to policy, or is required by the legal convictions of the community.

Answer 14

true

Question 15

In 1979, in the case of Administrateur, Natal v Trust Bank van Afrika, the AD for the first time endorsed the proposition that whether negligent conduct causing pure economic loss is to be judged wrongful depends on whether the imposition of liability for that conduct accords with policy.

Answer 15

true

Question 16

In 2011, in the case of Le Roux v Dey, the CC finally vindicated the orthodox academic view of wrongfulness, by stating that the wrongfulness of all harm-causing conduct ‘ultimately depends’ on the reasonableness of that conduct, judged ex post facto.

Answer 16

False, they did the opposite

Question 17

According to Fagan, Aquilian Liability, the following fact, which has been identified by the courts as a reason to conclude that negligent harm-causing conduct was not wrongful, is concerned only with the consequences of recognising that conduct as a legal wrong: the fact that, if the negligent conduct in question were to be judged wrongful, it might open the floodgates of litigation.

Answer 17

true

Question 18

According to Fagan, Aquilian Liability, the following fact, which has been identified by the courts as a reason to conclude that negligent harm-causing conduct was not wrongful, is concerned only with the consequences of recognising that conduct as a legal wrong: the fact that, if the negligent conduct in question were to be judged wrongful, it would result in a substantial re-allocation of state resources.

Answer 18

true

Question 19

According to Fagan, Aquilian Liability, the following fact, which has been identified by the courts as a reason to conclude that a negligent harm-causing omission was wrongful, is concerned only with the consequences of recognising that omission as a legal wrong: the fact that the omission took the form of a failure to guard against a danger either posed by property under the control, or introduced by the prior positive conduct, of the person who omitted to act.

Answer 19

false

Question 20

In Maimela v Makhado Municipality, the Supreme Court of Appeal accepted, as part of the ratio of the judgment, that a person who caused bodily harm to another could escape liability on the basis that he had acted with the harmed person’s consent.

Answer 20

false

Question 21

In ‘The Trolley Problem’, Judith Jarvis Thomson claims that Philippa Foot in effect endorsed the following thesis: ‘Killing one is worse than letting five die.’

Answer 21

true

Question 22

In ‘The Trolley Problem’, Judith Jarvis Thomson provides the reader with a hypothetical which she calls Bystander at the Switch and which, so she argues, presents ‘serious trouble’ for the thesis that ‘Killing one is worse than letting five die.’

Answer 22

true

Question 23

In ‘The Trolley Problem’, Judith Jarvis Thomson provides the reader with a hypothetical which she calls Fat Man and she argues that, just as the bystander in Bystander at the Switch may throw the switch (in order to save the five) so you may push the fat man off the bridge in Fat Man (in order to save the five).

Answer 23

false

Question 24

In SA Hang and Paragliding Association v Bewick, Brand JA rejected the proposition that the wrongfulness of a negligent omission could depend on whether, given public policy, it is reasonable to impose delictual liability on the defendant for the harm caused by the omission.

Answer 24

false