Final answer:
The third form of delict encompasses five criteria including duties of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, the promotion of aggregate good, and non-maleficence. These criteria reflect moral commitments that, when breached, suggest legal responsibility in cases where harm is not directly inflicted but caused through negligence or a failure to act responsibly.
Step-by-step explanation:
The third form of delict, which could be interpreted as a form of criminal negligence or wrongdoing, typically refers to a set of criteria that must be met in order to hold an individual legally responsible for harm that does not result from direct action but from a failure to act with due care or foresight. This is distinct from the clearer cases of delict where direct harm is caused by an action. In law, it is acknowledged that there must be a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society.
The five criteria associated with this form of delict, which can be likened to W.D. Ross's prima facie duties, include: (1) a duty of fidelity, implying a need to be truthful and keep promises; (2) a duty of reparation for wrongs one has done; (3) a duty of gratitude and reciprocation; (4) a duty to promote the aggregate good, or societal welfare; and (5) a duty of non-maleficence, which is the duty not to harm others. Each of these duties represents a moral commitment that, if breached, fulfills the criteria for potential legal responsibility under the third form of delict.
In the reflection of court cases such as Strickland v. Washington, it becomes apparent that the duty of non-maleficence extends to providing a standard of care in professional contexts, such as the legal obligation of attorneys to render effective legal counsel to their clients. The broad scope of these duties illustrates the complexities and debate surrounding actions that may initially appear victimless but still entail moral and legal responsibilities.