Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The general scope of this case study is defamation under the law of torts. In law, there are two defamations, namely libel and slander. Slander defamation refers to a spoken word that can damage your reputation, while libel defamation is a permanent statement that has the potential to damage your reputation, for example, in magazines or TV adverts.
According to law, WIRETIME, Inc. Company committed a tort when they added a statement in the industry magazine, saying that BUGusa, Inc. manufactured electronics and recording devices which were of low quality and could not be reliable for a month.
In this case, WIRETIME, Inc. The company committed libelous defamation against BUGusa, Inc. Company. They are stating that devices produced by BUGusa, Inc. The company was of low quality could have affected BUGusa, Inc. Company in a negative manner, making it lose their customers, hence lowering their sales. That would further make their profits lower or possibly get a loss.
Another possible outcome would be that BUGusa, Inc. would have had to fire some of its employees when the company’s finances reduced due to the broken image. Also, the employees would face a lot of troubles in their job due to the statement made by the WIRETIME, Inc. Company.
The advert could also have made the users of their devices lose trust in these devices and possibly stop using them as well as buying the company’s production, hence making a loss to the BUGusa, Inc. Company.
The act is said to be libel since the written words in the magazine cannot be erased. Such press release could have reached a wide range of public and got to every person who had seen the magazine. In Burchill v Berkoff (1996), a journalist that made remarks about an actor and director called Berkoff. She said that Berkoff resembled a monster and added that a monster would have looked better than he did.
She also said that directors from Hitchcock who worked at Berkoff film were notoriously looking people. But the Court of Appeal assumed that the statement could have been defamatory if they had held the claimant up to content or wanted to remove him from the society. The court ruled that each reader was to understand the statement from his/her own perspective.
Thus according to the case, WIRETIME, Inc. wanted to compromise BUGusa, Inc.’s image and deter it from the society by making it collapse and lose its clients. Hence that is proven to be libel. WIRETIME, Inc. could be charged with libel defamation if they succeeded to make BUGusa, Inc go into a loss. That loss could be enough evidence to charge the WIRETIME, Inc. with libel defamation.
In another case between Charleston v Newsgroup paper (1995), two famous characters from a TV show appeared naked on a newspaper’s front page. And the title was written as “Strewth! What” Harold up to without Madge? Porn shocker for Neighbors stars”, but then it was revealed that the images were false.
That picture was generated from a computer game. The court agreed that the image was offensive but ruled out that it was not defamatory. The judges said that the article had a neutral effect since its publication had to be held as a whole. In relation to our case against WIRETIME, Inc. The company, we have no neutral ground, thus making it libel defamatory.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.