Pillai v Pillai 1963 (4) SA 838 (A) Damages: The plaintiff is entitled to damages for her loss of virginity and for the impairment of her marriage prospects. Bensimon v Barton 1919 AD 13 Bull v Taylor 1965 (4) SA 29 (A) Davel v Swanepoel 1954 (1) SA 383 (A) at 389 A seduced woman is presumed to have suffered damages as a result of her defloration. The amount of such damages depends on the circumstances of the case. Lourens v Van Biljon 1967 (1) SA 703 (T) Her subsequent marriage may have a limited effect upon the quantum. Davel v Swanepoel 1954 (1) SA 383 (A) at 389 Result of the seduction: If the plaintiff fell pregnant, she may claim, in addition to her general damages, the lyingin expenses incurred in connection with the pregnancy, birth and care of the child. She may also claim maintenance for herself for a period of confinement before and after the birth of the child, the maintenance being for the benefit of the child. She has no claim for her loss of earnings during this period. Lourens v Van Biljon 1967 (1) SA 703 (T) Card v Sparg 1984 (4) SA 667 (E) [Page 312] PRECEDENTS Claim – for damages 1. Plaintiff is [name], a major spinster of [address]. 2. On [date] at [place], defendant seduced and had sexual intercourse with plaintiff. 3. As a result of the said intercourse, the plaintiff became pregnant and, on [date], gave birth to a child, [name]. 4. As a consequence of the seduction, plaintiff suffered damages in an amount of [amount]. 5. In giving birth to the child, plaintiff incurred lying-in, medical and nursing expenses, and required maintenance during her confinement calculated as follows: (a) (b) (c)
lying-in expenses [amount]; medical and nursing expenses [amount]; maintenance for the period of confinement from [date] to [date] [amount].
Pleadings/Amlers Precedents of Pleadings/S/Set-off Set-off Related subjects:
COUNTERCLAIMS PAYMENT
Set-off: Set-off comes into operation when two parties are mutually indebted to each other and both debts are liquidated and fully due. The one debt extinguishes the other pro tanto as effectually as if payment had been made and can be regarded as a payment brevi manu. Joint Municipal Pension Fund (Transvaal) v Pretoria Municipal Pension Fund 1969 (2) SA 78 (T) Cf ABSA Bank Ltd v Standard Bank of SA Ltd [1997] 4 All SA 673 (A); 1998 (1) SA 242 (SCA) Set-off operates ipso facto and not only after or as a result of the plea of set-off. Great North Farms (Edms) Bpk v Ras 1972 (4) SA 7 (T) Should the creditor claim payment, the defendant must plead and prove set-off in the same way as a defence of payment. But, once set-off is established, the claim is regarded as extinguished from the moment the mutuality of the debts existed. Schierhout v Union Government (Minister of Justice) 1926 AD 286 at 290 Mahomed v Nagdee 1952 (1) SA 410 (A) AAA Brick Co (Pty) Ltd v Coetzee [1996] 1 All SA 23 (B); 1996 (3) SA 578 (B)