Myles M. Mattenson
ATTORNEY AT LAW 5550 Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 200 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone (818) 313-9060 Facsimile (818) 313-9260 Email: MMM@MattensonLaw.com Web: http://www.MattensonLaw.com |
Watch What You Say! | |
|
Watch What You Say! Competition in the marketplace can sometimes create an atmosphere in which one momentarily feels the urge to utter a few inappropriate remarks about a competitor. In those moments, you would do well to remember that courts have held that "the reputation of a tradesman in the sphere in which he earns his living is a valuable asset and is entitled to the protection of the law." Translation: You might shortly find yourself looking down the barrel of a lawsuit for defamation. Defamation is considered to be an invasion of one's interest in reputation. Defamation can be accomplished by either libel (generally, a writing) or slander (generally, an oral statement). In one situation, an organization published a magazine article in which the plaintiff was characterized as a "racketeer". The Court of Appeal held that such an allegation could constitute defamation. In another matter, a male defendant was warned by female plaintiffs to stop illegally parking his car in front of their business establishment. The defendant hung a sign on his car "Nuts To You -- You Old Witch". The words were held to be used in a derogatory sense with the intent to expose plaintiffs to contempt and ridicule. A department store made comparisons between its garments and the garments of a department store competitor across the street. The offending store placed placards in its window stating that the competing department store "was selling as first grade merchandise, garments which were shoddy, poorly made seconds, and prison made merchandise, which were being offered to the public as first grade merchandise. It also charged that these garments . . . were so defective and contained so much starch and filler that they lost 25% of weight after laundering, and that its customers had been defrauded by purchasing as pre-shrunk garments, those which were not pre-shrunk, and that the seams were crooked; that they had long stitches and were slovenly made . . . ." The court determined that the competing department store was being accused of fraud and deception and unfair dealing with their customers and that these charges were libelous. At trial, the offending department store attempted to introduce a "policy book" in which their managers were admonished to "maintain a spirit of friendliness and courtesy toward their competitors. The court noted, however, that the employer was nonetheless liable for the conduct of the employee manager "if, acting in the scope of his authority, he makes a mistake as to truth or acts with a bad motive." The court also noted that at the time of trial, the manager was still in the employ of the department store, acting as manager, which the court considered as "some evidence of ratification to be considered with the other facts in the case." Other situations in which the courts have held remarks to constitute defamatory statements include calling a jeweler a "crook" and that he "got away" with a ring entrusted to him, accusing a car dealer of having "hot" title, and calling an attorney a "crook". Bottom line? When the urge strikes to improperly attack a competitor, take a deep breath, and let the feeling pass! The alternative may be to explain your comments in the presence of a court reporter. [This column is intended to provide general information only and is not intended to provide specific legal advice; if you have a specific question regarding the law, you should contact an attorney of your choice. Suggestions for topics to be discussed in this column are welcome.] Reprinted from New Era Magazine Myles M. Mattenson © 1995-2002 |