Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Libeling Lawnmowers
Is it possible to defame an inanimate object such as a plane, or a house, or a painting? Surprisingly, the answer to this question is 'yes.' This sort of claim, which is generically captured by the designation 'commercial disparagement,' has, on occasion, been pursued successfully at trial involving 'hard' assets and can even be employed when the damages are more prospective than actual. The tort falls generally within the penumbra of libel and slander-related claims, but has been overshadowed by the more commonly recognized types of claims asserted against individuals or corporate entities rather than tangible objects. Commercial disparagement claims, when understood, are a useful line of defense to an asset owner ' as well as a hazard for those unaware of the claim's contours.
The Restatement of Torts on Commercial Disparagement
Section 624 of the Restatement of Torts offers an outline that many jurisdictions have embraced as determinative on the topic of injurious falsehood. It states that liability arises for the (a) publication of a false statement disparaging another's property rights in land, chattels or intangible things, which (b) the publisher should recognize as likely to result in pecuniary harm to the other through the conduct of third persons in respect to the other's interests in the property. Any kind of legally protected interest in land, chattels, or intangible things may be disparaged, so long as the interest is transferable and therefore salable or otherwise capable of profitable disposal. The form of publication may be as a statement of fact; a statement in the form of an opinion is not actionable as defamation unless it is held to imply the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts that justify the derogatory opinion. Finally, the statement must be published under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable person to expect that the third person who has acted or refrained from acting in reliance upon the statement would do so or that its publication might deter some third person from buying or leasing the property that is disparaged.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.