Amy, a qualified attorney, sustains serious head injuries in an accident resulting from the negligent driving of a motor vehicle by Bob. In a subsequent lawsuit against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) on behalf of Amy, who is mentally retarded in consequence of her injuries, it appears that Amy has already received certain amounts from other sources in order to redress the effects of her injuries. It is urged on behalf of the defendant that such amount should be taken into account in reducing the extent of the total amount claimed on Amys behalf. Discuss the merits of this contention considering the relevant law, where the respective amounts are as follows: (a) R12 000 which Amy had received from her former employer subsequent to the termination of her employment as an attorney , after the firm had on the grounds of pure sympathy employed her again as a consultant for a period of one year, in spite of the fact that she was utterly incompetent to perform any constructive work during that period and for the greater part of it remained at home. (b) R30 000 which represents an amount of full pay for a three-month period, to which Amy is entitled as a sick pay benefit in terms of her contract of employment; (c) R10 000 which Amy received additionally from her employer as a discretionary sick-pay benefit; (d) R200 000 which Amy received from her employer in a single payment as a pension benefit. The law firm did not make it compulsory for all employees to belong to a pension fund and Amy voluntarily chose to contribute to a pension fund. (e) Would your answer to (d) above differ if the firm had made it compulsory for Amy to join the pension fund? (f) In addition the parties are confused about whether taxation on income Amy would have earned should be taken into account when calculating Amys lost income. Advice them using appropriate authority.