The defendants in the advertisement of their product used a caricature of the plaintiff without any contract or his consent.
To/by v. J.S. Fry & Sons Ltd., [(1981) AC 333 (HL)], the plaintiff was an amateur golf champion. The defendants were manufacturers of chocolates.
The plaintiff sued for damages alleging that by the advertisement he had suffered in his credit and reputation. He alleged that he never ate the chocolates of the defendants even.
It was held that the innuendo that the plaintiff had prostituted his status for advertising was supposed by the fact and the advertisement was, therefore, defamatory for a man in his position.
Winfield states, "Where, however, the words are not defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, or where the plaintiff wishes to rely upon an additional meaning in which they were understood by persons having knowledge of particular facts, then an innuendo is required.
This is a statement by the plaintiff of the meaning which he attributes to the words". The plaintiff must prove the existence of facts to support the meaning. If such facts do not exist, the innuendo fails and may be struck out of the statement of claim.
In Bruce v. Odhams Pres Ltd., [(1936) 1 KB 697], the defendants published an article in their newspaper in which they referred to certain airplane smuggling exploits of ‘an English woman’.
The plaintiff brought a libel action against the defendants. She alleged that the words "an English woman". "She" and "her" in the article, referring to the woman meant the plaintiff.
But the plaintiff was not identified in the article by name or description as the woman referred to by any witness.
It was held that the defendants were not liable. The Court held that the defendants were liable and ordered to pay the damages to the plaintiff.
The Author "Micheal Robb" is an expert Legal adviser who owns and runs a site on Law,Rules and Regulations:
Rules
Pigeonhole principle
The system administrator has set policies to prevent this installation
Loading...