, Stuvia.com - The study-notes marketplace
PVL3703
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1
MARCH 2026
(TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED)
The Element of Conduct in Amir’s Delictual Claim Against Lalita
In the South African law of delict, delictual liability arises only once all the elements
of delict have been established, the first of which is conduct. Conduct is defined as
a voluntary human act or omission attributable to the defendant (Neethling,
Potgieter & Visser 2022). The enquiry in this scenario is whether Lalita’s behaviour
can be classified as legally relevant conduct for purposes of Amir’s delictual claim.
Conduct may manifest in the form of a positive act (commission) or a failure to
act (omission) (Neethling et al 2022). Lalita’s initial decision to boil water using the
kettle constitutes a positive act. However, Amir’s claim is not based on the mere use
of the kettle, but rather on Lalita’s subsequent failure to warn him about the loose
and sparking plug. The relevant focus is therefore on whether Lalita’s omission is
capable of satisfying the conduct requirement.
In principle, an omission does not automatically amount to conduct in delict. South
African law requires that the defendant must have been under a legal duty to act
positively before an omission can attract delictual liability (Neethling et al 2022).
The existence of such a legal duty is determined with reference to the legal
convictions of the community (boni mores), as articulated by the Appellate
Division in Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A). The court in Ewels held
that a failure to act will be regarded as wrongful where society would view the
omission as unacceptable in the circumstances.
Downloaded by: THEUNISAPRO | Want to earn
Distribution of this document is illegal R13,625 per year?
PVL3703
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1
MARCH 2026
(TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED)
The Element of Conduct in Amir’s Delictual Claim Against Lalita
In the South African law of delict, delictual liability arises only once all the elements
of delict have been established, the first of which is conduct. Conduct is defined as
a voluntary human act or omission attributable to the defendant (Neethling,
Potgieter & Visser 2022). The enquiry in this scenario is whether Lalita’s behaviour
can be classified as legally relevant conduct for purposes of Amir’s delictual claim.
Conduct may manifest in the form of a positive act (commission) or a failure to
act (omission) (Neethling et al 2022). Lalita’s initial decision to boil water using the
kettle constitutes a positive act. However, Amir’s claim is not based on the mere use
of the kettle, but rather on Lalita’s subsequent failure to warn him about the loose
and sparking plug. The relevant focus is therefore on whether Lalita’s omission is
capable of satisfying the conduct requirement.
In principle, an omission does not automatically amount to conduct in delict. South
African law requires that the defendant must have been under a legal duty to act
positively before an omission can attract delictual liability (Neethling et al 2022).
The existence of such a legal duty is determined with reference to the legal
convictions of the community (boni mores), as articulated by the Appellate
Division in Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A). The court in Ewels held
that a failure to act will be regarded as wrongful where society would view the
omission as unacceptable in the circumstances.
Downloaded by: THEUNISAPRO | Want to earn
Distribution of this document is illegal R13,625 per year?
