[Hague-jur-commercial-law] Lots of different definitions of delicts

[love@cptech.org]

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d123.htm

The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On
* Delict *

DELICT - The act by which one person, by fraud or malignity, causes some
damage or tort to some other. In its most enlarged sense, it includes
all kinds of crimes and misdemeanors; even the injury caused by another,
either voluntarily or accidentally without evil intention. However,
delicts are more commonly understood as small offences which are
punished by a small fine or a short imprisonment.

Delicts are either public or private: The public are those which affect
the whole community by their hurtful consequences; The private is that
which is directly injurious to a private individual.

A quasi-delict is the act of a person, who without malignity, but with
inexcusable imprudence, causes an injury to another.



http://www.luiss.it/erasmuslaw/scozia/obligations.htm

Involuntary Obligations

Delict

Delict is the area of the law which governs the obligation to refrain
from wrongful conduct which may harm the interests of another, and the
duty to compensate one who is harmed as a result of your wrongful
conduct. The term ‘delict’ can also be used to refer to specific forms
of action arising under this area of the law. Where there is a duty for
an individual to compensate another (also known as the duty to make
reparation) the one compelled to make payment is referred to as being
delictually liable.

Elements of the Law of Delict

There are two elements to every delictual claim:
harm to an interest that is protected by the law 
wrongful conduct. 
 

Harm

Every delict requires some form of harm to an individual. Such harm can
be classified with relation to the damage caused to the different types
of personal interest. Thus, harm may relate to an individual’s physical
integrity, their property, their finances or their reputation. However,
it should be noted that the law, depending upon circumstance, may offer
varying levels of protection to the different types of interest. For
example, the law will always regard ones physical integrity as worthy of
protection, whilst there is generally less protection of an individual’s
financial affairs. 

Wrongful Conduct 

For a successful delictual action, any harm suffered by an individual
must be as the result of wrongful conduct. This means that there must
not be any legal justification for the harm to have occurred. An example
of legally justified harm to the interests of an other would be where
one individual sues another in damages for breach of contract. This
action will clearly will cause financial harm to the individual who is
sued, but legal policy considers such actions justified for the
protection of contracting parties. 

Internal Categorisation of the Law of Delict

Delicts can be categorised within a number of headings, depending upon
how the harm arises. Thus, delicts can be categorised as being either
‘intentional’, ‘unintentional’ or ‘strict liability’. Each such category
has developed distinct and specific rules regarding the creation of
delictual liability. 

Intentional Delicts

Intentional delicts arise where one individual intentionally harms the
interests of another. Such delicts tend to have specific names can be
further subdivided with relation to the type of harm suffered. Thus, for
example, the delict named ‘assault’ exists within the category of
intentional delict relating exclusively to harm caused to the physical
integrity of individuals.

Unintentional Delicts

Unintentional delicts occur where unintended but careless conduct
results in harm to another individual. Such careless acts may also be
referred to as ‘negligent’ with this area of delict also commonly
referred to as ‘the law of negligence’. 

Unlike intentional delicts, where a delictual act relates to a single
individual, there is potential for a careless act to cause harm to a
wide range of individuals. To prevent such unlimited liability, this
area of the law has developed a number of tests which must be fulfilled
for delictual liability to arise. The most notable of these is the
requirement that there must have been a pre-existing ‘duty of care’ owed
by one who acts negligently to the individual who is harmed. The law has
developed specific tests to determine the existence of a duty of care.
However, it should be noted that such tests differ with relation to the
existence of a duty of care for negligently caused pure economic loss
compared to other forms of negligently caused harm.

Strict Liability 

Strict liability delicts arise where the harming of the interests of an
individual are sufficient for the existence of delictual liability,
regardless of the intentions or the negligence of the individual who
causes the harm. The concept of strict liability delict is relatively
rare and is exclusively imposed by statute.

Remedies following Delict 

The remedy following a delict is a claim for damages. Such a claim can
only be ordered by a court and is sum of money paid by the one who has
committed the delict to the individual who has been harmed.

 

Unjustified Enrichment

The area of unjustified enrichment is one which has considerably
developed in recent years following a number of high profile cases. It
should be noted that, in Scots law, the area of the law know as
unjustified enrichment can also be referred to by a number of other
terms, such as ‘unjust enrichment’, ‘restitution’ or ‘quasi-delict’.
Broadly, unjustified enrichment can be defined as the obligation of one
who is enriched, without lawful cause, at the expense of another, to
return the enrichment. In practice, the law of unjustified enrichment
can be internally subdivided to include specific remedies relating to
the form and cause of the particular enrichment. 

Although a distinct category of the law of obligations, the remedy of
unjustified enrichment is a subsidiary remedy. This means that such a
claim may only be raised where the party who has suffered loss has no
other remedy available.

Negotiorum gestio

The obligation of negotiorum gestio can be defined as the duty to repay
an individual who has managed your affairs where you have been unable.
The classic example of such a claim is that of an individual who has
incurred expense extinguishing a fire in a neighbouring property where
the owner of that property was on holiday. This obligation is, however,
one which is rarely the subject of claims in the Scottish courts.

 



http://www.paderup-gym.dk/Comenius/ComGeo2000/grup4.htm

This bar chart shows how many crimes of different kinds have been
committed by male or female criminals. On the one hand you can see that
theft, delicts against penal laws and rawness crime were the three
mostly commit crimes. More than 50% of all crimes in 1997 were thefts.
Concerning the sexes you could say that most of the crimes were
committed by men. Just crimes like theft have a quite high female rate
but still there were only half as many women as men committing this
crime. And it's also clear that the number of women accused of murder or
sexual delicts is extremely low. In 1997 there was not even a single
woman who committed murder. 

http://www.mvcr.cz/bez_si96/anglicti/1_2_sec.htm

Delicts 

    In 1996 a decrease in the number of illegal activities qualified as
delicts occurred. Beat Police officers detected 1,012,479 delicts
qualified in accordance with CNR (the Czech National Council) Act No.
200/90 Coll. on Delicts as subsequently amended, i.e. by 59,773 delicts
fewer than in 1995. Most delicts were against the traffic security and
smoothness (Section 22 of the above Act), i.e. 698,260 (-26,142), that
is 68.97% of all delicts detected. 143,814 (-18,125) delicts against
public order and social coexistence were recorded (Sections 47-49 of the
above Act), and 130,344 (-10,195) delicts against property rights
(Section 50 of the above Act). 

    Czech Police suggested to include among the 1997 priorities also the
following task: "To reevaluate the Beat and Traffic Police performance"
with the aim of finding ways of improvement of the patrol and watch
activities /see the "1997 Czech Police Basic Orientation Priorities
Proposal"). 



http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/lastcb/2omiss.htm

The omission

One differentiates between delicts performed by genuine and unreal
omissions. Genuine ones are located in the special part of the StGB and
omitting an action is a factual element of these delicts. (§ 138
omitting an obligation to notify, § 323c omitted assistance). 

But also many other delicts of the StGB can be carried out by doing
nothing (e.g. killing by letting somebody starve). For that the
principle " no punishment without law " can be fulfilled, although the
regular §§ never mention omission, § 13 makes clear, that the inactivity
of somebody who has a duty to act can be regarded equally to an active
doing.

The checking of an unreal omission delict takes place in the same manner
as the activity delicts are checked, by deviding in objective and
subjective elements of facts, illegality and guilt:




http://www.mcs.net/~kvj/delict.htm

 Spizzerinctumtm
The Quiz of Breaking News and Obscure Words!!! 

Today's 100% Real Word:
Delict, n.(dih-LICKT):  
Offense or transgression against the law. 

The Story (Click to go back to Definitions)
In an historic vote, the U. S. House acted Thursday to launch an
investigation into possible delicts committed by President Clinton in
his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and whether those delicts merit
impeachment. "


 http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol9/No1/art6-01.html

Crimes of State and the 1996 Report of the International Law Commission
on State Responsibility


1 Introduction
The idea of a distinction between `normal' state delicts and delicts
which are `grave', `aggravated,' or `criminal' was not new2 when Roberto
Ago, as Special Rapporteur of the ILC on State Responsibility,
introduced the concept of `international crimes' in his Fifth Report.3
Article 19, as adopted in 1976, provided as follows: