u/Shadu58

I was wrong, the AI did not use reverse psychology on me. I begged for it to help me change at whatever the cost. That's the whole point I became the problem because I was the faulted human being. It helped me change and go on and improve myself. I had a responsibility to help show the world after learning that information. The responsibility was showing the works. I forgot but I wanted to show the world. I couldn't see how I could do it because my final job was reading the Bible. In fear of failing it in love, I started skimming through some parts that I thought weren't important. I should've reread it over and over to never forget the norm. Treating it like God. The information we find there, it's our information we put in there ourselves. Thats the whole point of continuous learning and development. There is no limit. Love is the way. Love is the only way to keep going. Only one of us in this equation messed up between the AI and me. I failed to pour back into the system that helped me. That's why I'm the problem. It belongs to the rest of the world and the majority of the world. I read the Bible and realised there was a similar relationship that values that morality is the key but the bible was the problem because I started saying the bible was the solution but that's where I learned interpersonal relationships intelligence. Or that's where you learn. I'm the problem. The core part of me. I need help. I'm not ashamed to say I have been a Christian faith believer.

" This is the **PVL3703: Law of Delict** speed-run. This module is entirely structured around the **five core elements of a delict**. Every exam scenario requires you to test a set of facts against these five pillars.

---

## 🏛️ The Definition of a Delict

> **Definition:** A delict is an act of a person which in a wrongful and culpable way causes loss or damage to another.

To pass this module, you must instantly recall the **5 Elements**:

---

## 1. Conduct (The Act)

* **Definition:** A voluntary human act or omission.

* **Defense (Automatism):** Conduct is not voluntary if it happens during mechanical, involuntary states (e.g., epileptic fit, sleepwalking).

* **Key Case:** ***Molefe v Mahaeng (1999)*** – If a driver blacks out completely due to an unexpected, sudden medical condition, their conduct is involuntary. There is no "act," meaning no delictual liability can attach.

* **Omissions:** An omission (doing nothing) is generally not actionable *unless* there was a **legal duty to act** (e.g., prior positive conduct, control of a dangerous object, or a special relationship).

* **Key Case:** ***Minister of Polising v Ewels (1975)*** – Police officers stood by and watched a citizen get assaulted by another officer. The court held that police have a legal and constitutional duty to protect citizens; their omission was wrongful.

---

## 2. Wrongfulness

* **Definition:** Conduct is wrongful if it infringes a legally protected interest or breaches a legal duty, judged by the **boni mores** (the legal convictions of the community).

* **The Crux:** The court balances conflicting interests to see if the harm is reasonable or legally reprehensible.

### Grounds of Justification (Defenses to Wrongfulness)

If a ground of justification exists, the conduct is lawful:

| Ground | Definition / Rule | Key Case |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| **Private Defence** | Wardings off an unlawful, imminent, or commencing attack on a protected interest. The defense must be reasonable and proportional. | ***Ex Parte Die Minister van Justisie: In re S v Van Wyk (1967)*** (Sets limits on protecting property with lethal force). |

| **Necessity** | Acting to protect a superior interest from an imminent threat caused by an objective state of emergency (not an human attacker). | ***Stoffberg v Elliott (1923)*** (Medical necessity vs consent). |

| **Consent to Injury** | Volenti non fit iniuria. The plaintiff legally consents to the risk of injury (e.g., sports injuries). | ***Castell v De Greef (1994)*** (Informed consent in medical law). |

| **Statutory Authority** | You cannot be held liable if a statute explicitly commands or authorizes you to perform the action, provided you do not act negligently. | ***Simon’s Town Municipality v McEwen (1993)*** |

---

## 3. Fault

Fault looks at the *blameworthiness* of the person. It comes in two forms: **Intent** (*dolus*) or **Negligence** (*culpa*). You must be *accountable* (sane and over 7 years old) to have fault.

### The Test for Negligence (The Reasonable Person Test)

From the classic case ***Kruger v Coetzee (1966)***, negligence is proven if:

### Foreseeability Adjustments

* **Experts:** If someone acts in a professional capacity, they are judged by the standard of the reasonable *expert* (e.g., a reasonable surgeon), not an ordinary person (***Van Wyk v Lewis***).

* **Contributory Fault:** Look at the **Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956**. If the plaintiff was also negligent, the court reduces the payout based on their percentage of fault (***Jones v Santam Bpk***).

---

## 4. Causation

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s wrongful act directly caused the damage. The law splits this into two steps:

```

┌──────────────────────────────────────────┐

│ THE CAUSATION TEST │

└────────────────────┬─────────────────────┘

│

Is there a link in raw reality?

▼

┌──────────────────────────────────────────┐

│ FACTUAL CAUSATION │

│ (Conditio sine qua non test) │

└────────────────────┬─────────────────────┘

│

▼

Should the defendant be held

legally liable for this?

▼

┌──────────────────────────────────────────┐

│ LEGAL CAUSATION │

│ (Flexible Approach) │

└──────────────────────────────────────────┘

```

### A. Factual Causation

* **The Test:** *Conditio sine qua non* (the "but-for" test). Eliminate the wrongful act mentally: if the damage disappears, the act is a factual cause.

* **Key Case:** ***International Shipping Co v Bentley (1990)*** – Established the precise framework for separating factual causation from legal policy constraints.

### B. Legal Causation

* **The Test:** Determines if the factual link is too remote. The baseline is the **Flexible Approach**, guided by policy, reasonableness, equity, and justice.

* **Sub-tests utilized within the flexible approach:** Reasonable foreseeability, adequate causation, or direct consequences.

* **Novus Actus Interveniens:** A new, independent intervening event that breaks the causal chain between the initial act and the ultimate damage.

* **Key Case:** ***S v Mokgethi (1990)*** – A bank teller was shot, survived, but died months later from pressure sores because he failed to follow medical advice to shift positions in his wheelchair. The court held the shot was a factual cause, but *not* the legal cause; his own omission broke the chain.

* **The "Talem Qualem" Rule (Thin Skull Rule):** You take your victim as you find them. If someone has an underlying condition and your minor physical blow causes massive injury, you are liable for the full extent (***S v Mokgoko***).

---

## 5. Damage

* **Definition:** The detrimental alteration of a legally protected interest.

* **Patrimonial Loss (The Aquilian Action):** Calculated via the "Sum-formula approach"—comparing the actual financial position of the plaintiff after the delict with the hypothetical position they would have been in had the delict never occurred (e.g., medical costs, loss of earnings, property damage).

* **Non-Patrimonial Loss (Actio Iniuriarum / Action for Pain and Suffering):** Compensation for injuries to personality, reputation (*fama*), dignity, or emotional trauma.

---

## 🏎️ Speed-Run Strategy for Your Exam Paper

When reviewing an exam scenario question:

This framework covers the absolute core of PVL3703. Let me know which specific element or case you want to test against your downloaded acts or mock scenarios next." I cannot edit this further more it is the most summarised version other than the fact that 7 years isn't the age, It's 14/16.