Quiz 6: Tort Law
Defamation: • The tort of libel is defamatory speech in a written statement that wrongfully causes injury to another's reputation. A court will determine whether the defendant made a statement of opinion or a statement of fact. • Statements of opinion are usually not actionable; however a statement of fact is actionable. A statement of fact is false and represents something as fact. • For a plaintiff to prevail in a lawsuit for libel she must prove injury to reputation, and that the statement was false. The statement that Richerd is the "worst" driver in the city is obviously a false statement, and so is the statement that hiring him is asking for legal liability. • Richard will have to prove the falsehood of those statements in court. General damages are presumed as a matter of law and are designed to compensate the plaintiff for nonspecific harms such as disgrace or dishonor in the eyes of the community, and emotional distress. • If Richard can prove that he has been turned down for a job because of Dun's statement, then he will prevail in a lawsuit.
Defamation I could sue D on the ground of defamation but she cannot be successful in her case. Defamation means making false and defamatory statements about some person which lower's down her reputation. In this case, if D told her friends about I's instruction to the man to take the goods without paying for them after the tsunami disaster. It cannot be claimed as defamation as I did not make any false statement. Therefore, the suit for defamation would not stand just and D will not be successful in her suit.
Case brief: L was a bakery owner and trying to obtain a long-term contract with the owner of MT salon. L makes a advertising campaigns in TV and newspaper which appears to be very persuasive then the MT salon decided to break the contract with him. Doe L was liable for the tort of wrongful interference with regard to contract relationship. Intentional torts against people: Intentional tort is an illegal act that causes to harm other person with an intention is termed as intentional torts. While it happens against a person intentionally then is called as intentional torts against people. The theory under which H may be able to recover would be an intentional tort of "wrongful interference with a contractual relationship." H must prove the following: • H and M had a valid contract • L knew of the contract between H and M • L purposely tried to interfere with the contract by convincing M to break the contract with H. In this case, L may have hoped that his ads would cause M to end her contract with H. However, M's decision was based on the ads, rather than anything L did. Thus, L cannot be guilty of the tort Although H cannot recover against L, he may still be able recover against M for breach of contract.