ExpertLaw.com Forums

Can You Be Sued for What You Write in a Letter

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst Previous 1 2 3 4 Next LastLast
  • 05-16-2014, 10:22 AM
    cbg
    Re: Over a Letter
    OP feels that the company is unethical and corrupt. He writes a letter to the CEO of the company telling him that the company is unethical and corrupt.

    Where is the publication?
  • 05-16-2014, 10:36 AM
    Welfarelvr
    Re: Over a Letter
    Quote:

    Quoting cbg
    View Post
    OP feels that the company is unethical and corrupt. He writes a letter to the CEO of the company telling him that the company is unethical and corrupt.

    Where is the publication?

    The CEO is not the corporation.
  • 05-16-2014, 10:43 AM
    cbg
    Re: Over a Letter
    So, who are YOU anticipating that he would be writing the letter to?
  • 05-16-2014, 11:04 AM
    Welfarelvr
    Re: Over a Letter
    Quote:

    Quoting cbg
    View Post
    So, who are YOU anticipating that he would be writing the letter to?

    To XYZ corporation. But, that does not change the fact he expected someone to read it. That is publication to a third party.
  • 05-16-2014, 11:09 AM
    cbg
    Re: Over a Letter
    You are completely clueless.

    Okay, let's go at it this way. For purpose of this question, who is the corporation?
  • 05-16-2014, 11:51 AM
    Welfarelvr
    Re: Over a Letter
    Quote:

    Quoting cbg
    View Post
    You are completely clueless.

    Okay, let's go at it this way. For purpose of this question, who is the corporation?

    Again with the insults? Sigh.

    Before we go through silly games, do you know what Prosser on Torts is? (Actually, Prosser and Keeton on Torts".) It is called a Hornbook. It is often referenced in cases where the basic law is needed to be stated. For the specific cases (not precidential in HI) referenced for the quote applicable here:

    Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer, 1849, 14 Q.B.D. 185, 53 L.J.Q.B. 20
    Brown V. Elm City Lumber Co., 1914, 167 N.C. 9, 82 S.E. 961

    So you can see it has been so for a very long time.

    To answer your question, a "corporation" is not a "who", it is a what.

    From (http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/vi...context=wmborj)

    Quote:

    Defamation law is designed to protect reputation "in the popular sense," that
    which diminishes "the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the plaintiff
    is held."'3 7 The traditional definition of reputation, however, concerns the personal
    and emotional consequences of false speech.' In Gertz, the Court stated explicitly
    that defamation law exists to protect "the essential dignity and worth of every
    human being. '
    Corporations are incapable of suffering the reputational injury that defamation
    law seeks to redress. The corporation is a "artificial being ... existing only in
    contemplation of law.""Iw A corporation does not have social relationships and
    cannot suffer the same emotions that a natural person may suffer.'6' They do not
    have a private life. 62 Nor do they have a purely personal reputation.' 63 Moreover,
    the reputation of a corporation is not directly attributable to any natural person. The
    separation of management control and shareholder ownership "place[s] the
    shareholder at a greater emotional and legal distance from an allegedly defamatory
    publication concerning the corporation."'" In essence, corporations do not have a
    "character to be affected" by defamation. 165
    While they cannot be personally harmed, corporations may have a property
    interest in their reputations, an intangible asset akin to good will. 11 At common
    law, a corporation can recover for insults to its reputation for "financial soundness,
    efficiency, credit, management, or other matters affecting business reputation."'67
    Corporations may stand to lose substantial amounts of wealth if their corporate
    name is tarnished. 6 The concept of reputation as a property interest, however, is
    problematic in the defamation law context. First, the Supreme Court has been
    unwilling to recognize a heightened constitutional interest based on that party's
    economic position.'69 Second, because defamation law is based on personal
    reputational interests, it allows for a "substantial verdict for the plaintiff without
    any proof of actual harm to reputation."''I A corporate plaintiff thus puts
    "defamation law in the business of compensating individuals for harms which, from
    the perspective of reputation as property, may well be nonexistent."'' Third, unfair
    trade practices, product disparagement suits, and market controls diminish the
    chances of corporate loss to reputation. " Finally, corporations have unique access
    to the channels of communication in order to launch countervailing speech in
    response to defamatory falsehoods."
    Because the reputation of a corporation is not the same type of reputation as
    that of a natural person, defamation law is not well-served by treating personal and
    corporate reputations as equivalent. As corporations cannot suffer personal
    reputation injury, "corporations as a class are less deserving of reputational
    protection than individuals.".

  • 05-16-2014, 11:58 AM
    cbg
    Re: Over a Letter
    Exactly.

    Have you read the above quote?
  • 05-16-2014, 12:40 PM
    Welfarelvr
    Re: Over a Letter
    Quote:

    Quoting cbg
    View Post
    Exactly.

    Have you read the above quote?

    I both read and understand it. Do you?

    Is it your claim a corporation cannot win a suit for defamation? Perhaps you should lay out your theory. Before you state something based on a snippet, you might want to read the entire article.
  • 05-16-2014, 12:44 PM
    LawResearcherMissy
    Re: Over a Letter
    Quote:

    Again with the insults?
    No, she's right. You're seriously lacking in clue.

    Writing a letter to a company to tell them they suck is not publication to a third party, any more than writing a letter to you to tell you that you suck is publication to a third party.

    It's time for you to be quiet on this topic, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

    JasonJ, the answer to your question of "Can they sue" is "Yes, they can sue." You can be sued because your neighbor doesn't like the color of your house. You can be sued because your bank teller hates your shoes. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. All "sue" means is "ask the courts to settle an argument".

    You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is "Can they win?", and the answer to that is NO.

    It's not defamation to tell a company what you think of them.
  • 05-16-2014, 01:17 PM
    quincy
    Re: Can You Be Sued for What You Write in a Letter
    Quote:

    Quoting JasonJ
    View Post
    My question involves defamation in the state of: Hawaii

    Hello,

    My question is, if you are writing a private letter to a company and you say that they are an unethical and corrupt company (I truly believe that), is it considered slander?

    Thank you,
    JasonJ

    First in answer to your title question: Yes, you can be sued for what you write in a letter. But you would not be sued for "slander." Slander is the oral or spoken form of defamation. Libel is its written form.

    That said, unless in the private letter to the company you singled out a specific person or specific people as being unethical or corrupt, the private letter to the company could not be the basis of a successful defamation claim. You have caused no harm to the reputation of the company.
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst Previous 1 2 3 4 Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved