Business Law
Business Law Final Denise Capalbo
Chetum v. Knarles
Issue: Defamation
Rule: Under the common law, defamation requires a false statement of fact, of or concerning plaintiff, published to a third party and causing damages. Also, where defamation is about a public person or matter of public concern, the plaintiff must prove that the statement is false, and that the defendant either knew of its truth or acted with reckless disregard of the truth (malice).
Analysis: Knarles’ statements to his colleagues are arguably opinion, rather than facts. If so, then there is no defamation. If not, then Knarles’ comments may be defamatory, because while they may be fair comment about an issue of public concern, Knarles has no proof of the truth of those statements, and as such, he acts with reckless disregard of the truth. Therefore, Knarles’ is liable for defamation.
Chetum v. Stucko
Issue: Defamation
Rule: See definition, above.
Analysis: Stucko’s statements are clearly factual. Assuming that they are made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth, then Stucko is liable for defamation. However, truth is an absolute defense to defamation – so, if Stucko’s statements are true, then he is not liable for defamation.
Residents v. Chetum
Issue: Battery
Rule: Under the common law, Battery is an intentional harmful or offensive touching of another without consent or privilege.
Analysis: When Chetum tells the plumber to “fix it,” in reference to the boiler, while simultaneously knowing that the boiler is defective and has been recalled, Chetum engages in an intentionally harmful touching of all of his residents. Therefore, Chetum is liable for battery.
Issue: Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
Rule: Under common law, the breach of quiet enjoyment occurs where a landlord acts or fails to act to secure the quiet enjoyment of a tenant in the tenancy.
Analysis: The residents have a right under their lease agreement to the
Chetum v. Knarles
Issue: Defamation
Rule: Under the common law, defamation requires a false statement of fact, of or concerning plaintiff, published to a third party and causing damages. Also, where defamation is about a public person or matter of public concern, the plaintiff must prove that the statement is false, and that the defendant either knew of its truth or acted with reckless disregard of the truth (malice).
Analysis: Knarles’ statements to his colleagues are arguably opinion, rather than facts. If so, then there is no defamation. If not, then Knarles’ comments may be defamatory, because while they may be fair comment about an issue of public concern, Knarles has no proof of the truth of those statements, and as such, he acts with reckless disregard of the truth. Therefore, Knarles’ is liable for defamation.
Chetum v. Stucko
Issue: Defamation
Rule: See definition, above.
Analysis: Stucko’s statements are clearly factual. Assuming that they are made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth, then Stucko is liable for defamation. However, truth is an absolute defense to defamation – so, if Stucko’s statements are true, then he is not liable for defamation.
Residents v. Chetum
Issue: Battery
Rule: Under the common law, Battery is an intentional harmful or offensive touching of another without consent or privilege.
Analysis: When Chetum tells the plumber to “fix it,” in reference to the boiler, while simultaneously knowing that the boiler is defective and has been recalled, Chetum engages in an intentionally harmful touching of all of his residents. Therefore, Chetum is liable for battery.
Issue: Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
Rule: Under common law, the breach of quiet enjoyment occurs where a landlord acts or fails to act to secure the quiet enjoyment of a tenant in the tenancy.
Analysis: The residents have a right under their lease agreement to the