100%
PVL3703
EXAM PACK
DISTINCTION QUALITY
UNISA EXAM
, LAW OF DELICT
18 August 2025
FI Concession Exam
DEPARTMENT OF PRIVATE LAW
FI CONCESSION TAKE-HOME EXAMINATION
LAW OF DELICT
(PVL3703)
DUE DATE: Wednesday, 20 AUGUST 2025
@ 15:00
THIS FI CONCESSION EXAM MAY BE COMPLETED IN ENGLISH ONLY!
EXAMINERS:
First: Mr Chad-Lee Bedeker
Second: Prof JC Knobel Prof M Mokotong
Instructions to students:
1. Your answer needs to be clearly written and should reflect your knowledge,
understanding, and application of the law to the facts given. You should
provide evidence to support the argument being made. In other words, you
should define your arguments and counterarguments. Relevant analysis of
other legal writers' research and opinions should be incorporated, if
relevant. Use and apply reasoning (critical thinking), evidence, and cite
relevant sources. Lastly, conclude with your point of view that is supported
by evidence. Take note that no additional credit will be given for repetition
of facts/arguments.
2. The portfolio consists of a factual discussion application question. You may
consult your textbook and other study material, but you may not consult
other persons. We are going to rely on your honesty and integrity in this
regard and may require a sworn statement from you if deemed
necessary.
3. There is no length restriction, but we do not want a lengthy piece of work.
The idea is to determine whether you can draft an appropriate legal opinion.
, FI CONCESSION EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1
Read the fictitious scenario below and answer the questions that follow.
A medical research startup company, Animus Medical (Pty) Ltd, has been pioneering
medical research into stroke prevention therapies. The study and prevention therapy
method they seek to implement concerns subjecting human candidates to extremely
low and relatively safe temperatures, with the aim of investigating the envisaged
neuroprotective benefits associated with this form of cryogenic therapy for the purpose
of stroke prevention. However, these research trials are still in their early stages of
human testing and development. Furthermore, it is important to note that this therapy
has been ethically cleared for human trials.
Dr Tladi, a 28-year-old postdoctoral biomedical researcher, signed up to volunteer in
the research trial at the Pretoria-based research facility. An orientation session is
conducted with the aim of briefing and informing all participants to read through
documentation pertaining to the therapy, and they are provided with access to consent
forms and information documents disclosing all pertinent information relating to the
cryogenic therapy. Dr Tladi feels that she is medically competent enough in
, understanding research trial therapy processes and does not see it necessary to read
through all the documentation. Dr Tladi instead reads the summary documentation
and proceeds to sign the standard consent form. The summary documentation
describes the possibility of experiencing temporary discomfort during treatment, but it
does not detail the critical information pertaining to the potential risks, such as nerve
damage. Furthermore, Animus Medical (Pty) Ltd research assistants did not further
ensure that Dr Tladi was made aware of the important information relating to the trial
therapy.
Before the commencement of research trials, Dr Tladi and the other research
participants are instructed not to consume alcohol 24 hours before the start of their
respective cryogenic therapy sessions. Dr Tladi forgets about this instruction and
arrives slightly hungover for her cryogenic therapy session, as she had consumed
alcohol the night before. Toward the end of Dr Tladi’s cryogenic therapy session, she
develops early signs of frostbite, resulting in permanent damage to nerve endings in
her fingertips. This negatively affects her ability to continue her own surgical research.
Dr Tladi decides to institute a civil action for damages against Animus Medical Pty Ltd,
arguing that she had not truly consented to the extent of the harm caused, namely, the
permanent damage to nerve endings in her fingertips. Animus Medical (Pty) Ltd raised
consent as a ground of justification.
Required:
Explain whether Animus Medical Pty Ltd may validly raise consent as a ground of
justification. (25)
Note to student:
• Explain and apply the applicable theory to the relevant facts of the case.
• In your answer, identify and apply the relevant requirements for establishing
consent.
• Provide a substantiated conclusion stating whether Animus Medical Pty Ltd
may raise consent as a ground of justification to exclude wrongfulness.
PVL3703
EXAM PACK
DISTINCTION QUALITY
UNISA EXAM
, LAW OF DELICT
18 August 2025
FI Concession Exam
DEPARTMENT OF PRIVATE LAW
FI CONCESSION TAKE-HOME EXAMINATION
LAW OF DELICT
(PVL3703)
DUE DATE: Wednesday, 20 AUGUST 2025
@ 15:00
THIS FI CONCESSION EXAM MAY BE COMPLETED IN ENGLISH ONLY!
EXAMINERS:
First: Mr Chad-Lee Bedeker
Second: Prof JC Knobel Prof M Mokotong
Instructions to students:
1. Your answer needs to be clearly written and should reflect your knowledge,
understanding, and application of the law to the facts given. You should
provide evidence to support the argument being made. In other words, you
should define your arguments and counterarguments. Relevant analysis of
other legal writers' research and opinions should be incorporated, if
relevant. Use and apply reasoning (critical thinking), evidence, and cite
relevant sources. Lastly, conclude with your point of view that is supported
by evidence. Take note that no additional credit will be given for repetition
of facts/arguments.
2. The portfolio consists of a factual discussion application question. You may
consult your textbook and other study material, but you may not consult
other persons. We are going to rely on your honesty and integrity in this
regard and may require a sworn statement from you if deemed
necessary.
3. There is no length restriction, but we do not want a lengthy piece of work.
The idea is to determine whether you can draft an appropriate legal opinion.
, FI CONCESSION EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1
Read the fictitious scenario below and answer the questions that follow.
A medical research startup company, Animus Medical (Pty) Ltd, has been pioneering
medical research into stroke prevention therapies. The study and prevention therapy
method they seek to implement concerns subjecting human candidates to extremely
low and relatively safe temperatures, with the aim of investigating the envisaged
neuroprotective benefits associated with this form of cryogenic therapy for the purpose
of stroke prevention. However, these research trials are still in their early stages of
human testing and development. Furthermore, it is important to note that this therapy
has been ethically cleared for human trials.
Dr Tladi, a 28-year-old postdoctoral biomedical researcher, signed up to volunteer in
the research trial at the Pretoria-based research facility. An orientation session is
conducted with the aim of briefing and informing all participants to read through
documentation pertaining to the therapy, and they are provided with access to consent
forms and information documents disclosing all pertinent information relating to the
cryogenic therapy. Dr Tladi feels that she is medically competent enough in
, understanding research trial therapy processes and does not see it necessary to read
through all the documentation. Dr Tladi instead reads the summary documentation
and proceeds to sign the standard consent form. The summary documentation
describes the possibility of experiencing temporary discomfort during treatment, but it
does not detail the critical information pertaining to the potential risks, such as nerve
damage. Furthermore, Animus Medical (Pty) Ltd research assistants did not further
ensure that Dr Tladi was made aware of the important information relating to the trial
therapy.
Before the commencement of research trials, Dr Tladi and the other research
participants are instructed not to consume alcohol 24 hours before the start of their
respective cryogenic therapy sessions. Dr Tladi forgets about this instruction and
arrives slightly hungover for her cryogenic therapy session, as she had consumed
alcohol the night before. Toward the end of Dr Tladi’s cryogenic therapy session, she
develops early signs of frostbite, resulting in permanent damage to nerve endings in
her fingertips. This negatively affects her ability to continue her own surgical research.
Dr Tladi decides to institute a civil action for damages against Animus Medical Pty Ltd,
arguing that she had not truly consented to the extent of the harm caused, namely, the
permanent damage to nerve endings in her fingertips. Animus Medical (Pty) Ltd raised
consent as a ground of justification.
Required:
Explain whether Animus Medical Pty Ltd may validly raise consent as a ground of
justification. (25)
Note to student:
• Explain and apply the applicable theory to the relevant facts of the case.
• In your answer, identify and apply the relevant requirements for establishing
consent.
• Provide a substantiated conclusion stating whether Animus Medical Pty Ltd
may raise consent as a ground of justification to exclude wrongfulness.
