Shill Bidding Example?

I posted my previous comment to the wrong thread. Sorry about that!

Intent may be an important factor, but in a civil action (see the recent suit filed by a "victim" of "libel" in the Rutgers basketball/Imus "scandal") the burden lies in establishing the damages that occurred as a direct result of the speech in question. Damages can be very diffcult to prove and very hard to quantify.

I just have to correct some of the misinformation and/or misimpression found in the two posts prior to Bobby's. If you believe either of these posts, you will be skating on very thin ice.

1.

quote:

---

Libel can also be hard to prove, because the other party can't just prove that you were wrong - that's not libel. You can be wrong. They have to prove that the reason you were saying it was malicious or unjust.

---

This is incorrect. Libel is shown by (a) a defamatory comment, (b) published to third parties, (c) that the defendant knew or should have known was false. Do you see anything in there about plaintiff having to prove the comment was motivated by malice or the reason for saying it was unjust? The standard for determining whether someone "knew or should have known" their comment was false is reasonable care. If you have to defend yourself in court, especially in front of a jury, anything can happen. In some cases, persons making a defamatory comment may be found liable simply if they showed a reckless disregard for the truth. You gotta exercise reasonable care in making your comments, and where that line is drawn will depend on the facts.

2.

quote:

---

the burden lies in establishing the damages that occurred as a direct result of the speech in question. Damages can be very difficult to prove and very hard to quantify.

---

The damages Halfbustisbetter is speaking of relate to the definition of "defamation" which requires the plaintiff to show the comment in question damaged or tended to damage his/her reputation. If you call a Rutgers female basketball player a racially/sexually derogatory term, she must show her reputation was damaged (not just that she was insulted), and that may be hard to prove. But if you call a coin seller a crook for engaging in shill bidding, and someone reads it, you have damaged their reputation. That's not a close call, and not difficult to prove. The comment is defamatory on its face. To prove libel, the plaintiff doesn't have to show he lost x amount of sales after the comment was made.

In my opinion, it would be wise to listen to Bobby's advice and stay well on the side of caution when making accusatory comments that could harm someone's reputation unless you can prove it.

"This is incorrect. Libel is shown by (a) a defamatory comment, (b) published to third parties, (c) that the defendant knew or should have known was false. Do you see anything in there about plaintiff having to prove the comment was motivated by malice or the reason for saying it was unjust?"

Yes, because that's part of what defamation means. That's also what item "c" means. If it's false, it's unjust, a little less unjust if you were just mistaken, more unjust if it was intentional. I would amend my definition with your "reasonable care" clause. Mainly because if you can't back up what you say, then it's hard to prove you weren't just trying to be malicious. If you "should have known" it was false (reasonable care), that's pretty unjust, too.

There are plenty of lines to be drawn. And I agree that any time someone uses labels, like "you're a crook", or especially if there's a moral judgement "you're a tramp", it will look more like defamation because it might not be provable. Less risky would be, "it looks like this person may be doing this..."

By the way, it doesn't have to cost thousands of dollars to defend yourself. You can do it yourself. It depends on how worried you are that you're wrong.

greyhav--I could be missing your point entirely, but as a matter of law, a statement does not have to be made with malice or unjustly in order to be false. The malice standard is more generally applicable to proving defamation against a public figure. Also, strictly as a matter of law, false and unjust are not synonyms. If a statement is false, it is simply a false statement. There may be a completely justifiable reason for the person to make the statement, but the law does not generally allow justification as a defense of libel. In other words, the seller may be a crook, and you may be making a just statement in referring to that person as a crook, but facts regarding the truth or falsehood of the statement will be at issue legally.

quote:

---

My final comment regarding this matter is, if vette1986 is not engaged in shill bidding, I will be the first to apologize for my mistaken impression of the bidding pattern(s) previously noted, and I'm sure that I will be joined by others.

---

Boy I wish you would have said that two pages ago. What a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo when the advice given was to just be careful in what you say. Guess I should have started reading at page 4. Surprised it wasn't locked 15 posts ago actually....

Actually tights, it wasn't legal mumbo jumbo, it was "legalistic" mumbo jumbo. Also known as pseudo-woodo-voodoo-mumbo-jumbo. And you are correct that for most people the legal distinctions aren't important and the golden rule is probably the best law to follow.

I actually enjoy the technical aspects of business law and am glad I purchased a copy of West's a couple of years ago.

With a couple of good coin magazines, a sudoku book, and West's Business Law, I could live in my bathroom.

Sorry about that tights, the big post was really meant as a response to the poster who placed my comments in quotes and then proceeded to tell everyone what I was really talking about and that my post was not to be "believed." I apologize for being a: long-winded, b: legalistic, and c: unbelievable.