Editing Delict (section)

==South Africa and Sri Lanka==
{{main|South African law of delict}}
[[South African law]] and [[Sri Lanka]] also use the law of delict as opposed to torts. The South African common law elaborates a set of general principles in terms of which liability for loss is allocated. This should be seen in contrast to the Anglo-American common law approach which has distinct tort actions, each with their own peculiar elements which require satisfaction before an action is founded. The delictual elements that have to be satisfied before a claimant can be successful are:

#'''Conduct''' &ndash; which may consist of either a commission (positive action) or an omission (the failure to take required action), though liability for an omission will arise only where there is a duty to act.
#'''Unlawfulness''' &ndash; the conduct complained of must be legally reprehensible. This is usually assessed with reference to the legal convictions of the community.
#'''Fault''' &ndash; save in limited cases where liability is 'strict' (i.e. where neither intention nor negligence is required for liability) once the wrongfulness of the conduct is established, it is necessary to establish whether the person being sued acted intentionally or negligently, either of which is sufficient for liability to attach.
#'''Damage''' &ndash; finally the conduct must have resulted in some form of loss or harm to the claimant in order for them to have a claim. This damage can take the form of patrimonial loss (a reduction in a person's financial position, such as is the case where the claimant incurred medical expenses) or non-patrimonial damages (damages that cannot be related to a person's financial estate, but compensation for something like pain and suffering).
#'''Causation''' &ndash; the conduct that the claimant complains of must have caused damage, in this regard both factual causation and legal causation are assessed. The purpose of legal causation is to limit the scope of factual causation, if the consequence of the action is too remote to have been foreseen by an objective, reasonable person the defendant will escape liability.

It is possible that a single set of facts may give rise to both a contractual and a delictual claim. The definition of ''animus contrahendi''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legal-glossary.org/animus-contrahendi/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150107150337/http://www.legal-glossary.org/animus-contrahendi/ |url-status=usurped |archive-date=January 7, 2015 |title=Legal definition of animus contrahendi |publisher=legal-glossary.org |access-date=2013-06-18}}</ref> states an intention to contract.<ref>Mal Kam-u-riwo dissertation, p. 12.</ref>

Public policy considerations are evident in the setting of the limits to each of the requirements.<ref>malvin kay journal article, vol 1, p. 54.</ref>