Law of Defamation and

Corporates
Law of Defamation balances two
important Rights
Right of Reputation v Freedom of Speech
and Expression
 Inherent personal right of every person
 Jus in rem, a right good against the entire

world.
 The wrong of defamation protects reputation

and defences to the wrong, viz truth and

privilege protect the freedom of speech.
 No one has a right to cause loss to the

reputation of other with malafide intentions.

 The existing law of defamation is a
reasonable restriction on the fundamental
right of freedom of speech and expression
conferred by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian
Constitution and is saved by clause ( 2) of
Article 19.
 Article 19 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights recognizes that
respect for the reputation of other people
operates as a limit to freedom of expression.
 Provisions against defamation occur in Bible,

in ancient Roman law and in the Anglo-saxon

codes.
 Defamation is a private matter, a civil wrong;
however from its inception there has been a
recognition that attacks upon reputation had
consequences for public peace.

 Its comes within the ambit of Torts Law and

has been mainly borrowed from the English
Common Law.
 Under the English Law Criminal libel is
generally traced back to medieval statutes
enacted to punish ‘ devisers of tales whereby
discord or occasion of discord have thence
arisen between the King and his people or
great men of this realm.
 The first such statute, known as Scandalum

Magnatum, was passed in 1275.

 Similar laws were enacted in the following
centuries, but by the 16th century such ‘ tales’
were seen as an affront to the individuals
referred to, as well as an undermining of public
order.
 There was a cult of reputation, overriding
importance of reputation.
 Many of the punishments, the stocks, the pillory,
the apology read out in the market – place, were
based upon the theory that public humiliation
was a more effective penalty than a fine.
Defamation under Indian Law
 How is ‘defamation’ defined under Indian laws?

 India- Defamation both a civil and criminal offence.

 Civil wrong provides compensation whereas criminal
wrongs seeks to punish a wrongdoer and send a
message to others not to commit such acts. In Indian
laws, criminal defamation has been specifically
defined as an offence under the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) whereas the civil defamation is based on tort law
– an area of law which does not rely on statutes to
define wrongs but takes from ever-increasing body
of case laws to define what would constitute a wrong.
 These can either be published or spoken about
a person with the intention of damaging
reputation of that person, or with the
knowledge or reason to believe that the
imputation will harm his reputation. Section
500 stipulates an imprisonment of up to two
years, with or without fine, for someone held
guilty of criminal defamation. However,
criminal defamation is a compoundable
offence and parties can seek a closure of the
case by reaching a compromise.
 Section 499 of the IPC defines what amounts
to criminal defamation and few subsequent
provisions specify what the punishment for
having committed defamation would be.
Section 499 states defamation could be
through words – spoken or intended to be
read, through signs, and also through visible
representations.
Reputation
 Concept of reputation, honour all pervading
and importance can be gleaned in all legal
systems including ancient India.
 A man’s reputation is his property, more

valuable than other property.

 A good name is to be chosen than great

riches.
 The destructive effects of slander were
explored in many literary works, while the
cultural importance is reflected in
Shakespeare’s Othello
 Good name in man, and woman, dear my lord
 Is the immediate jewel of their souls;
 Who steals my purse steals trash;
 ; 'tis something, nothing,
 'Twas mine 'tis his, and has been slave to

thousands;
 But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him,

 And makes me poor indeed
 The Purest Treasure mortal times afford Is
spotless reputation; that away, Men are but
guilded loam or painted clay. A jewel in a
ten-times-barr'd chest Is a bold spirit in a
loyal breast. Mine honour is my life, both
grow in one, Take honour from me and my
life is done.
 3 Co. Rep. 254, 255, pt. v, fol. 125, 77 Eng.
Rep. 250, 251 (1605). "As the soule is more
precious than the bodie; so it is greater
offence to take away any mans good name,
which refresheth the soule, then to defraude
him of his foode, that sustaineth but the
bodie."
WHAT IS DEFAMATION?
 In the words of Winfield, "Defamation is the
publication of statement which tend to lower a
person in the estimation of right thinking
member of society generally or which tends to
make them shun or avoid the person.“
 Defamation is an injury to the reputation of a
person which exposes him to hatred, ridicule or
contempt. It also includes statements which
cause the defamed person to be shunned or
avoided or which has tendency to injure him in
his office, profession or trade.
 General
The test of whether or not a statement is defamatory is whether the
words complained of tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-
thinking members of the society generally, or whether they would tend to
make the plaintiff shunned or avoided by right- thinking people.
Sim v Stretch
 The plaintiff’s housemaid re-entered the
service of the defendant on April 12, 1934.
On that date the defendant addressed and
sent a telegram to the plaintiff containing the
following words: “ Edith has resumed her
service with us today. Please send her
possessions and the money you borrowed,
also her wages to Old Barton.--- Sim”
 The plaintiff claimed damages for libel,
alleging that these words were defamatory,
and further that by them the defendant
meant and was understood to mean that the
plaintiff was in pecuniary difficulties, that by
reason thereof he had been compelled to
borrow and had in fact borrowed money from
his housemaid, that he had failed to pay her,
her wages, and that he was a person to whom
no one ought to give any credit.
 Held: the words complained of were not
reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning.
 Lord Atkin
 Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in

the estimation of right- thinking members of

society generally.
Bryne v Deane Court of Appeal
( 1937) 2 ALL E.R 204
 The plaintiff was a member of the Seaford
Head Gold Club. The defendants, Mr and Mrs
Deane were the proprietors of the club; Mrs
Deane was also the secretary.
 As a result of a complaint to the police

certain gambling machines were removed

from the club house. Thereafter, the
following lampoon was put up on the wall of
the club house near the place where these
machines had stood:
For many years upon this spot
You heard the sound of a merry bell;
Those who were rash and those who were not,
Lost and made a spot of cash.
But he who gave the game away,
May be byrnn in hell and rue the day.
The plaintiff sued for libel
 Held, his action must fail, because the
allegation made, that he reported the
gambling machines to the police was not one
that would lower the plaintiff in the
estimation of right-thinking people.
 In Mitchell v Faber (1998) the Court of Appeal held
that, in deciding whether or not words could be
defamatory, it was necessary to consider the
reaction of the readers who was neither unduly
suspicious nor unduly naive, who was capable of
reading between the lines and detecting
implications, but not 'avid for scandal', and who was
not prone to assume a derogatory meaning where
an innocent one could apply. The question to be
asked is: "what effect the allegation that someone
had held those attitudes at the time would have on
a reader in the current time period."
 In order to find for libel it must be proved
that the statement complained of is
 A) false
 B) in Writing
 C) defamatory
 D) published
False
 The falsity of the charge is presumed in the
plaintiff’s favour.
 The burden of proof that the words are false

does not lie upon the plaintiff. Defamation of

a person is taken to be false until it is proved
to be true.
Difference between Libel and Slander
 A libel is a defamation in some permanent
form i.e written or printed defamation
 A slander is a defamation in transient form
 Libel actionable per se, slander is actionable

only when special damage can be proved

except in the exceptions provided.
Allsop v Allsop
The claimant was ostracised by her friends
and became mentally ill when the defendant
alleged he had committed adultery with her –
this was not special damage.
 The obvious result is a series of cases where

claimants are keen to frame their claim in

libel, and defendants eager to classify an act
as slander.
 Norman v Future
Publishing ( 1998)
In assessing whether a statement is defamatory, a
court will look at the whole context in which it
was made.
 The claimant was the famous opera singer,
Jessye Norman. She was interviewed by a
classical music magazine, and in the article
was quoted as saying, with apparent
reference to her size, that she never went
through doorways sideways because “ Honey,
I ain’t got no sideways.’ Ms Norman denied
making the remark.
 She claimed that it suggested she was vulgar
and undignified, and conformed to a
degrading racist stereotype of a person of
African- American heritage.’
 The Court of appeal dismissed her appeal on

the ground that the words had to be read

within the context of the article as a whole,
which portrayed her as a person of high
standing and impeccable dignity.
Berkoff v Burchill ( 1996)
Berkoff v Burchill ( 1996)
 The inveterate newspaper columnist Julie
Burchill is not, to put it mildly, someone
afraid of speaking her mind. In 1993, for
example, during a famous exchange with the
American feminist scholar Camille Paglia,
Burchill used the sort of terminology that is
not repeatable in a family publication.
 So when The Sunday Times appointed her as
a film reviewer around the same time, it
would have known what to expect. Burchill
did not disappoint. In a review of the 1994
film The Age of Innocence, she wrote: “Film
directors, from Hitchcock to Berkoff are
notoriously hideous-looking people.”
 Nine months later she returned to the same
theme in a review of Kenneth
Branagh’s Frankenstein: “The Creature is
made as a vessel for Waldman’s brain, and
rejected in disgust when it comes out scarred
and primeval. It’s a very new look for the
Creature—no bolts in the neck or flat-top
hairdo—and I think it works; it’s a lot like
Steven Berkoff, only marginally better-
looking.”
 The impugned Mr Berkoff was clearly
wounded by Burchill’s lack of charity, to the
point where he brought an action for libel. He
alleged that the two articles were meant and
were understood to mean that he was
“hideously ugly”. A preliminary issue was
heard to determine whether that meaning
was capable of being defamatory. The judge
said:
 “I am doubtful whether to call a person
‘hideously ugly’ exposes that person to
ridicule, but I have come to the conclusion that
it is likely to lead ordinary reasonable people to
shun the plaintiff, despite the fact that being
hideously ugly is no reflection on a person’s
character or good reputation. For that reason,
albeit with hesitation, I hold that to call a
person ‘hideously ugly’ is defamatory. If
justification is pleaded, that will involve the
jury deciding whether the plea is made out.”
In Writing
 The defamatory statements may be made in
writing or in printing, or may be conveyed in
the form of caricatures or any other similar
representations.
 Yousoupoff v Metro Goldwyn- Mayers

Pictures Limited 1934

Monson v Tussauds ( 1894)
 Alfred John Monson received the Scottish
verdict of of not proven in the High Court of
Justiciary trial for the murder of Cecil
Hambrough.
 In 1894 Madame Tussauds in London erected

a waxwork of Monson at the entrance to its

Chamber of Horrors, bearing a gun. Monson
took exception, sued the company and was
awarded one farthing in damages.
 Under the Defamation Act, 1952, the
broadcasting of words by means of wireless
telegraphy i.e radio and television is treated
as publication in permanent form.
 Similarly by the Theatres Act, 1968, ( U.K)

theatrical performances are treated as

publication in permanent form i.e. libel.
 This case proved Innuendo and that libel
need not be in writing.
Newstead v London Express ( 1940)
Must refer to the Plaintiff
 A statement referring to a real person and
alleging something true about him may be
defamatory of another person bearing the
same name.
 The statement was “ Harod Newstead, thirty

year old Camberwell man” had been found

guilty of bigamy.
 This statement was true of a barman of that

name of Camberwell.
 The plaintiff bearing the same name and
aged about thirty, who carried on hair
dressing business at Camberwell and about
whom the statement was untrue succeeded in
recovering damages in an action for
defamation.
 Publication
 Publication of a statement in defamation
simply means communcation of the
statement to at least one person other than
the claimant.
 No publication between spouses
Theaker v Richardson ( 1962)
 The defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff, a
married woman and a fellow member of the
local district council which stated that she
was: ‘ a lying, low down brothel keeping
whore and theif.
 The letter was placed in a sealed brown

envelope similar to those used for election

addresses and sent to the plaintiff.
 Her husband thinking it was an election
address, opened the letter.
 The Court of Appeal held that this amounted

to publication on the ground that a natural

and probable consequence of the defendant’s
writing and delivery of the letter was that it
would be opened and read by her husband.
 The rule is therefore, that where the
defendant knew or ought to have foreseen
that the statement would come to the
attention of a third party, there is publication
even if that third party is a spouse.
 Huth v Huth ( 1915)
 A man sent a letter in an unsealed envelope to
his wife which contained defamatory
statements about her and about her children.
 In an admitted breach of duty her butler, acting
out of curiosity, opened and read the ltter. At
that time, the legal existence of a wife was
incorporated into that of her husband and this
meant that the woman was unable to sue her
husband in tort, so the action in defamation
against her husband was brought by the
children.
 The Court of Appeal held that, even though
the envelope was unsealed, there was no
publication.
 It was not part of the butler’s duty to open

the letter and it was not foreseeable that he

would open his employer’s mail.
Innuendo
 A statement which is innocent on its face may
yet be defamatory by reason of the
circumstances surrounding its publication.
Tolley v. J.S. Fry & Sons, Ltd
House of Lords, ( 1931) All. E.R
 The plaintiff was a champion amateur golfer.In
June, 1928, the defendants caused to appear
in certain newspapers an advertisement of
their chocolate. In the middle of statements
about kinds and prices of the chocolate, there
appeared a caricature of the plaintiff playing a
stroke at gold, with a carton of the
defendant’s chocolate protruding from his
pocket, in the company of a caddie who was
holding up packets of the defendants’
chocolate.
 Below this picture there appeared the
following verse:
“ The caddie to Tolley said: ‘ Oh, Sir!
Good shot, Sir! That ball, see it go, Sir.
My word how it flies,
Like a Cartet of Fry’s.
They’re handy, they’re good, and priced low,
Sir.”
 The plaintiff brought an action for libel, and
alleged as an innuendo that the defendants
meant and were understood to mean that the
plaintiff had agreed or permitted his portrait
to be exhibited for the purpose of the
advertisement of the defendant’s chocolate,
that he did so for gain and reward, that he
had prostituted his reputation as an amateur
golf player for advertising purpose.
Defamation of a Class of Persons
 Knupffer v London Express Newspapers Ltd
( 1944)
 The defendants had published an article

stating that an émigré Russian group was a

fascist organization. The group had
approximately 2,000 members, of whom 24
were based in the UK. The claimant was a
Russian immigrant living in London and he
brought an action for defamation.
 His action was rejected by the House of Lords
on the basis that the accusation of fascism
was aimed at the class of people and there
was nothing that singled him out.
 David Beckham tried to sue a US magazine for
claims that he had had an affair with Irma
Nici, 26, a former prostitute. . In court
papers, Beckham said he had been visiting
his sick father in England at the time of the
alleged affair. David, however, was unable to
win the court ruling and his $25 million claim
was dismissed by a US federal judge.
MILORAD TRKULJA
TONY MOKBEL (Drug
Baron)
 The biggest landmark case over the years is involving one
Australian man. Milorad Trkulja, also known as Michael
sued search giant Google as images of him was published
alongside the drug lord, Tony Mokbel. Michael won a
staggering amount of $200,000 in damages from Google
and $225,000 from Yahoo! Earlier, for the same reason.
 Thus, it can be fairly conclude that the lay man should
not be taken for granted and every media body can’t go
on publishing anything under the sun just because “it will
sell”.
 Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right
in most parts of the world, but it comes with restrictions
too.
 Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution
protects the right of every citizen when free
speech and expression is talked about.
 A debate long ensuing has been here in India

whether to de criminalise defamation.

How various politicians are fighting over decriminalising
defamation and considered as “clowns” by others.
 There are basically two ways in which a person
can cause defamation to one’s reputation and
those are-
i) In a permanent form (e.g., written/printed
defamation or an effigy, a wax statue, etc.) where
actual damages need not be proved : LIBEL.
ii) In a transient fashion, (in the form of spoken
words, gestures, etc.) : SLANDER. At common
law, a slander is actionable only when special
damages can be proved to have been its natural
consequence.
The plaintiff must prove:
 The statement was defamatory.
◦ (Lord Atkin in Sim v Stretch 1936,
◦ Statement satisfying Lord Atkin test Youssoupoff v M.G.M. Pictures Ltd
1934,
◦ Statement not defamatory if the person suffers in only a section of
community where majority of community would approve his action.
Byrne v Deane 1937,
◦ An innuendo may be required if the words used are not prima facie
defamatory. Tolley v J.S. Fry and sons Ltd. 1931, Cassidy v Daily
Mirror 1929)
 The statement refers to the plaintiff.
◦ The plaintiff need not necessarily be named (J’anson v Stuart 1789,
◦ It is no defence to say the defendant did not intend to refer to the
plaintiff except when unintentional defamation is successful. Hulton v
Jones 1910, Newstead v London Express 1939)

 The statement was published to a third party.

◦ Person not liable if publication occurs only as a result of an act which
is not reasonably foreseeable.
◦ Two or more persons may be responsible for the same publications
for example, the author, printer, publisher and bookseller.
Defamation
 Libel is actionable per se – the law presume
damages was done. There should be an
award of general damages by way of
compensation

 If plaintiff can proof he suffered actual loss

then he should be awarded special damages.
 Slander is not actionable per se unless:
◦ It imputes a crime punishable by imprisonment
◦ It imputes certain existing diseases, such as
venereal disease or Aids.
◦ It imputes unchastity, adultery, or lesbianism in a
woman
◦ It is calculated to damage the plaintiff in any office,
trade, or profession held or carried on by him.

the plaintiff must show the he has suffered

actual material or temporal loss.
Defence to Defamation
 Justification – This is a complete defence. The
defendant must prove its truth for the
plaintiff claim to be defeated.
Defence to Defamation
 Fair Comment – when there is a matter of
public interest
◦ It is a comment of opinion and not fact. Comments
must be based on true facts
◦ Comment must be honestly made (genuine)
◦ Comment must not be actuated by malice
◦ Comment must be on a matter of public interest.
Qualified Privilege
This will be available in the following situations, as
long as the statement was not published more
widely than necessary and provided it was not
motivated by malice
◦ Statement is under a legal, social or moral duty to make the
statement to a third party and he has an interest in
receiving it. (Watt v Longsdon 1930)
◦ For fair and accurate reports of judicial or parliamentary
proceedings, whether or not they are in a newspaper.
◦ For fair and accurate reports in a newspaper or broadcast
on various matters, such as public meetings. (including
monthly publications.
◦ For professional statements between solicitor and client.
Absolute Privilege
 No action lies for defamation, however, false
or malicious the statement, if it is made:.
◦ In Parliament ( Within the 4 house of the Parliament)
◦ In Judicial Proceedings
◦ In Naval and Military Proceedings
◦ In State Proceedings
Defamation and Corporations
 It is clear that Individuals may bring an action
for damages for libel or slander.
 Once Corporation came into their own,

questions arose whether a corporation can

sue for libel and slander.
 Previously held that a Corporation could not

maintain an action for libel for it is only

individuals and not the Corporation who can
be guilty of such an offence.
 Corporations could not be held liable for
wrongs involving malice or fraud on the
ground that to support an action for such a
wrong it must be shown that the wrong-doer
was actuated by a motive in his mind and that
a “ Corporation has no mind.”
Development of Alter Ego doctrine
 In the words of Viscount Haldene LC: “ A
corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind
of its own any more than it has a body of its
own.
 But there is a directing mind, the very ego

and centre of the personality of the

corporation.
 Corporations can sue and be sued and also

for wrongs of malice and fraud.

 The old doctrine, that a corporation
aggregate has no soul, and therefore is
incapable of a malicious intention, has been
described by Erle, C. J., as being rather quaint
than substantial, it has been held that
corporations, especially those of a trading
character, have souls, and may therefore be
guilty of malice.
 Number of Companies, their role in the
economic and politics of a country and the no
of transactions has necessitated a change in
this doctrine.
 Concept of Respondeat Superior
 After being held liable to an action for a false

return to a mandamus, for the negligence of

their servants, for false imprisonment,
 to an indictment for non- feasance, for
misfeasance it was decided that an
incorporated company might be sued for a
libel contained in a message transmitted by
their telegraph, the company being
incorporated for the purpose (inter alia) of
transmitting messages, Whitfield vs. The
South-Eastern Railway Company
 and that they might also be guilty of acts
maliciously committed with a view to injure
individuals or rival companies;
Trenton Mutual Life and Fire Insurance
Company v Perrine 23 N.J.L 402
 In defamation of Corporations the first cases
centered on whether a corporation could sue
on the basis of similarity to a natural person (
an individual) or to an artificial person ( an
entity).
 It is now settled that a corporation may bring

suit for defamation, the law applicable to

corporations is different than applicable to
individuals.
Judgement
 That a corporation aggregate may maintain an
action for a libel for words published of them
concerning their trade or business, by which
they have suffered special damage, was
decided, probably for the first time, in the
Trenton Mutual Life and Fire Insurance
Company vs. Perrine. It cannot be denied,"
observed Chief Justice Green, in delivering the
opinion of the court, " that a corporation may
have a character for stability, soundness, and
fair dealing, in the way of its trade or business;
 that this character is as essential, nay more
so, to its prosperity and success than that of
a private individual; that banks, insurance
companies, and money corporations
generally, whose operations enter largely into
the business of every community, depend
mainly upon their reputation in the
community for their success, and often for
their very existence.
 Nor can it be denied that the character of
corporations is more easily and more deeply
affected by false and malicious allegations
than that of private individuals; nor that the
business of a corporation is more prejudiced
by an evil name, by distrust of its
responsibility, or of the character of its
officers, than that of an individual.
 If, then, the reputation of a corporation, and
that of its officers, be essential to its
prosperity, if it may suffer pecuniary loss, and
even the utter destruction of its pecuniary
interests, from false and malicious
representations, why should it not be entitled
to pecuniary redress?"
 An action of libel would lie against a
corporation, for a statement in a report by
the president and directors of the company,
to the stockholders, and afterwards
published: Philadelphia, Wilming. ton, 'c.,
Railroad Co. vs. Quigley, 21 Howard, 202.
 Corporation would have no right of action for
imputing to it the commission of such a
crime as murder, assault or adultery.
 Individual- Reputation in Personal sense
 Corporation – reputation is the business

sense, protected by law.

 Corporation, good name, prestige, standing,

need to attract customers, and achieve the

purpose for which it was set up.
Farmers Life Insurance Co v Wehrle,
63 Colo 279
 When a newspaper charged an insurance
company with dishonest conduct in the sale
of its stock, the court held it was libel per se.
 It is libelous to publish an article accusing the

officers of a corporation of mismanagement

or of swindling the public, or charging the
corporation with fraud or dishonest practices.
 Corporation has committed a crime or
violated some law.
 A charge that mining company violated a law

with reference to the use of safety equipment

in its mines was actionable.
 A school charged with permitting and

encouraging immoral practices among its

students, was held actionable.
 Where an insurance company published a
statement which said that another insurance
company was insolvent, the publication was
actionable.
 Corporation has passed into bankruptcy, it is

libelous.
Erick Bowman Remedy Co v Jensen
Salsbery Laboratories
 That the defendant well knowing all the
foregoing facts and with the deliberate
purpose and malicious intent to injure the
plaintiff in its good name and in its business
and business reputation and credit, in the
issue of the said the Jen-Sal Journal of July,
1923, composed or caused to be composed
and published on page 22 of said publication,
of and concerning this plaintiff, the following
false and defamatory matter, to wit:
  
"`Bowman's Abortion Remedy.
 "`The North Dakota Agricultural College submitted the following analysis of a sample of
Bowman's Abortion Remedy:
  
Ash per cent ......................... 1.64
 Moisture (as received) % ............. 4.55
 Sucrose (by clerget) % ............... 72.83
 Polarization direct .................. Plus 72
 Polarization invert .................. Minus 24
 Reducing sugar before inversion % .... 5.42
 Reducing sugar after inversion % ..... 81.20
 Sucrose (by copper) % ................ 71.99
 Total sugar (by copper) .............. 77.41
 Residue soluble in water % ........... 7.65
 Residue insoluble in water % ......... 9.55  


"`Sample is brown sugar and bran.

  
 "`By State Food Commissioner and Chemist.
 "`This analysis corresponds in all respects to the

analysis of samples of this product sent to our

laboratory, which only gcoes to prove that P. T.
Barnum's statement 50 years ago can be applied
even at the present time.
 "`We understand that the Farm Bureau of North

Dakota is going to put on a publicity campaign to

protect the live stock owners against expenditures
for such products. This is one piece of work that
the Farm Bureau can handle in an effective way.'
 *257 "(9) That by the publication of said words
and article, the defendant intended to assert
and to be understood as asserting and by the
readers of said journal and publication was in
fact understood as asserting that the said
remedy manufactured and sold by this plaintiff
was worthless, and would not cure the disease
of abortion among cows and sows, and that
the said remedy was a fraud and a humbug,
and that this plaintiff was knowingly engaged
 in the business of cheating and defrauding the
public and all persons who bought said remedy
for the purpose for which it was manufactured and
sold, and that the Farm Bureau of North Dakota
was going to engage in a publicity campaign to
expose said fraud and to protect live stock owners
against buying such worthless products as
plaintiff was manufacturing and selling, and by so
doing the said Farm Bureau would be doing a
good service to all those who might be victimized
by buying plaintiff's said remedy."
Two Questions
 Can a Corporation be defamed by defamation
directed at an individual member?
 Can an individual be defamed by defamation

directed at a Corporation?
 This problem arises where libel and slander

have been directed at employees, officers,

mgt and stockholders of the Corporation.
 Generally the law is that one who is not
himself defamed cannot recover for a
defamation of his corporation, and the
corporation cannot recover for a defamation
directed at an individual.
 If the defamatory statement refers only to the

corporation, an officer or stockholder has no

right to recover individually.
 But in special situations it has been held that
there can be recovery by a corporation where
slanderous words spoken of an officer were
spoken in direct relation to the corporation’s
trade or business.
 Thus words are such as might defame both

the individual and the corporation( even

though not directed at both), each might have
a cause of action.
Neiman- marcus Co. V Lait,
107b
 In this case the defendants were the authors
of a book entitled U.S.A. Confidential. 
 The book contented that certain classes of

the store’s employees were prostitutes or

homosexuals.
 Although individuals could not recover

because of the size of the group, the store

was allowed recovery.
 A Corporation may be libelled by words
written about its employees if such words
discredit the way in which the corporation
runs its business.
 Although sometimes the court has said that

special damage has to be proved other times

it has been said that is not necessary to
allege special damage when the language is
of such
 a defamatory nature that some injury must
necessarily result directly from the
defamation.
 Railroad is charged with unsafe service, or a

bank with financial weakness or a

manufacturer is charged with selling a
worthless product etc.