First of all, the notion of obligation from a delict is not statutory.
Secodly, law doesn’t mean a statute. Law is a norm. A norm can be contained in many forms, a statute is only one of them.
Uhm, yes, there is no way to estabilish an IP regime solely on contracts. Because there is no way to estabilish anything solely on contracts. You prove it by referring to the NAP. The NAP is a law (=norm). If one acts in accordance with the NAP, he acts rightfully. What else is it, if not a law (=norm) ? Where did the NAP came from, how has it become a universally binding norm?
And if somebody breaks your leg, then you can demand damages only if you and the thug previously signed a “contract of not-breaking my leg”?
Edit: one sentence was there twice
Edit2: Look, in practice, the author would hire me, I would rule A, you or your friend would hire someone who would rule B or you would simply ignore my ruling, then the agencies would clash and the strongest or whatever would win. There is no point in discussing this issue in this paradigm.
Let’s instead think of it as if the two us were hired by the author of the book or the “infringer”, it doesn’t really matter, and we have to deliver the ruling. We have to reach common ground, so let’s proceed from the beginning. I am asking you whether or not there are universally binding norms, you answer that yes and give the NAP as an example. Next, I am asking you what is it that makes the NAP a universally binding norm? Why should we take it into account?
Edit3: Of course, anyone else feel free to join in.