Business Law Final Case Study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Business Law Final Case Study - Essay Example In addition to this view, in a case where the defamation involves a very public person and or is a matter of public concern, the plaintiff, as the complainant in the case, has to provide or give proof in the court of law that the claims or comments made by the defendant are false, and also that the defendant has either known of the truth of the claim and has simply acted recklessly and disregarded the truth out of pure malice towards the complainant or plaintiff. The statements that Knarles has made to his friends and colleagues are by all means just personal opinions, rather than facts; they are far from facts. If this is the case, then by all means, there is no case of defamation at all (Defamation. Ewell v. Boutwell, 1924). If Knarles was not simply stating his opinions about the person – the plaintiff who is Ian Chetum, then in that case his statements and comments could be considered as defamatory in nature. This is because in as much as his statements and comments could have been simple, fair comments to an issue that is of public interest and concern, Knarles had no proof of any kind that his statements were or are the truth. Therefore, as such, Knarles’ statements were made in high disregard of what is the truth, and this is utter recklessness. Consequently, Knarles can be sued for defamation by Ian Chetum. Chetum v. Stucko The next legal issue arises between Ian Chetum and Stucko. The legal issue at hand is still defamation. Just as, stated above, a case of defamation has to be backed by proof that a false statement of a fact has been made about the complainant, and have been made by a third party and caused damage to be liable in court (Defamation. Ewell v. Boutwell, 1924). The statements made by Stucko are obviously factual. If we assume that he made the statements with knowledge that he was falsifying them or blatantly disregarding the truth, then in that case he would be very liable to be charged for defamation. Nonetheless, the truth is often used as a defense for defamation claim – therefore, if the claims and statements are the truth, then Stucko has no case to answer on the grounds of defamation. The Residents v. Chetum This is the next case that the business conflict has brought up. The legal issue at hand is that of Battery. The rule of common law on Battery is that it is the intentional and or offensive act of touching of a third party without their privilege or consent to any way (Battery. Cavuoto v. Buchanan, 2004). When the building owner Ian Chetum tells the plumber from Knarles and Barkley’s company to ‘fix it’, – when referring to the broken boiler, and at the same time knowing that the broken boiler is highly defective, and the manufacturer had recalled their product, Ian Chetum, as the owner of the building is intentionally engaging in a harmful ‘touching’ of all of the residents of his building