re: Dell, libel, etc.
I sort of agree you, except: -- corporate (or business) defamation in which the competence or marketability of the business is per se in which the victim does not have to prove damages under common law. Check with your company counsel. Damages are conclusively presumed in most jurisdictions. Thus those protestors in London who were sued by McDonalds for defamation lost on several counts because the defamers were not able to prove that all of their defamatory charges were true. The damages assessed were, as I remember, about 40,000 pounds (which of course McDonalds did not have to prove and the defendants couldn't pay).
I agree that it is ridiculous for a company to sue a person for libel (those London defamers were out on the street passing out the defamatory pamphlets as soon as the court adjourned after sentence. Where the defamer is an employee of a customer (like a big bank) it may well be a different matter. Few want to pursue such a suit, and were I Dell I would like to know what is going on. If one of my customer's employees were telling lies at dinner parties, I would demand satisfaction. At the bare minimum, I want an explanation. At the max, I want that employee's head on a salver garnished with Salmon (Chases).
If I were Annette's brother, and I had been inaccurate in my gossip, I would issue a retraction to the thread (via Annette). I believe that is all I said. |
