malicious falsehood
Post on 03-Jun-2018
229 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
1/16
1 | P a g e
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
PROJECT REPORT ON
MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD
SUBMITTED TO:-
Mr. Harish Salve
SUBMITTED BY:-
Shashi kumar
Roll no.-1047
BBA.LLB
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
2/16
2 | P a g e
TABLE OF CASES
Ractliffe vs. evans, 1892
P.K. Oswal Hosiery Mills vs. Tilak chand, A.I.R.1969 Punjab 150, 159
Brook vs. Rawl (1849) 4 Ex 521
Ravenhill vs. upcott(1869) 20 LT 233
Odgers, libel and slander, p. 70
Malachy vs soper (1839) 2 Bing NC 371
Gutsole vs. mathers (1836) 1 M & 1 W 495
Evans vs. Harlow (1844) 5QB 624
Hatchard vs. Mege (1887) 18 QBD771
Dunlop pneumatic tyre co. vs maison tailbot (1904) 20 TR 579British Railway traffic & electric co. vs. CRC co. (1922) 2 KB 260
Barret vs. associated newspapers (1907) 23 TLR 666
Casey vs. Arnot (1876) 2 CPD 24
Hargovind vs. Kikabhai (1938) ILR Nag 348, AIR 1938 Nag 84
PKOH Mills vs. Tilakchand, AIR 1969 Punj 150
Malachy vs. soper (1836) 3 Bing NC 371
Peter vs. Baker (1847) 3 Bing NC 371
Halsey vs. brotherhood (1880) 15 Ch D 514
Griffiths vs benn (1911) 27 TLR 346
Cundey vs. lerwill & pike (1908) 24 TLR 584
Leetham vs. Rank (1912) 57 sol jour 111
Young vs. macrae (1862) 3 B & S 264
Shapiro vs. Lal moita (1923) 40 TLR 203
Wren vs. weild (1869) LR 4 QB 730
White vs. Mellin (1895) AC 154
Balden vs. Shorter (1933) CH 427
Tobacco co. vs. Bonnan AIR 1928 Cal 1
Steward vs. young (1870) LR 5 CP 122
Hatchard vs. mege (1887) 18 QBD 771
Lewis vs. Lewis (1895) 1 All ER 1005
White vs mellin (1895) Ac 154
British Railway Traffic & electric co. vs CRC Co. (1922) 2 KB 260.
Singer Machine manufacturers vs. Wilson (1876) 2 Ch D 343
Ainsworth vs. Walmsley (1866) LR 1 Eq 518
Gujarat G & M Co. vs. Swadeshi MillsCo., AIR 1939 Bom 118
Blofeld vs. Payne *(1833) 4B & Ad 410
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
3/16
3 | P a g e
Draper vs. Trist (1939) 3 All ER 513 (CA)
Singer mfg. co. vs. Loog (1882) 8 AC 15
Indian dental works vs. Dhanakoti AIR 1962 Mad 127
Draper vs. trist (1939) 3 ALL ER 513 (CA)
Reddway vs. Bentham Hemp Spinninig co. (1892) 2 QB 639
Haji jamal & co. vs Abdul Kareem & co.(1933) ILR 57 Mad 600
Malayan tobacco distributors vs. The united king tobacco, AIR 1933 PC 138
Singer machine manufacturer vs. Wilson (1876) 2 Ch D 434
Warwick tyre co. vs. new motor and general rubber co. (1910) 1 Ch 248
Thomas bear & sons vs. prayag (1940) ILR ALL 446, AIR 1940 PC 86
Ford vs, Foster (1872) LR 7 Ch 611
Upendra nath vs. The union Drug co. AIR 1926 cal 837
Unani Dawkhana Vs. Hamdard AIR 1930 Lah 999
Fels vs hedley (1930) 20 TLR 69
Linoleum manufg. Co. vs Nairn (1878) 7 Ch D 834
Canadian shredded wheat co. ltd. Vs. Kellog co. of Canada ltd. 1938 PCC 143
Rogger vs. Findlater (1873) LR 17 Eq 29
Coca cola co. of Canada vs. pepsi-cola co. of Canada ltd. (1942) 1 ALL ER 615 (PC)
(1896) AC 199
Imperial tobacco co. vs Bonnan (1924) ILR 51 cal 892 PC
Meera sahib vs. Abdul Aziz (1938) ILR Mad 466
The leather cloth co. vs. American leather cloth co. (1863) 4 De GJ & S 137
M mahendra shaw vs.tiruchy floor mills, trichy 1997(2) ALD 251
Leather cloth co. vs. American leather cloth co. (1865) 11 HLC 523
National Bank of india vs. National bank of Indore (1922) 24 Bom LR 1181
Day vs. Brownrig (1878) 10 Ch D 294
Street vs. Union bank of spain (1885) 30 Ch D 156
Hinnes vs Winnick (1947) Ch 708
Servile vs. Constance (1954) 1 ALL ER 662
Forbes vs. kemsley newspapers (1951) 2 TLR 656
McCullock vs. Lewis May ltd. (1947) 2 ALL ER 845
Dockrell vs. Dougall (1899) 80 LT 556
Section 478-489, IPC
Mohammd Raja vs. E, AIR 1930 Oudh 360
Section 48-86, IPC
Slazenger vs. Fentham (1889) 6RPC 531
Upmann vs. Elkann (1871) LR 12 Eq 140
Ractliff vs. Evans (1892) 2 Qb 524
Shephered vs. Wakeman (1661) 1 Sid 79
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
4/16
4 | P a g e
Dixon vs. Holden (1869) LR 7 Eq 488
Riding vs. Smith (1876) 1 Ex D 91
Shapiro vs. La morta (1923) 40 TLR 201
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
5/16
5 | P a g e
INTRODUCTION
Malicious falsehood consists in making malicious statements concerning the plaintiff to some
third person adversely affecting the pecuniary interest of the plaintiff. This wrong is similar
to defamation because in this case, as in defamation, a statement made to third person, causes
damage to the plaintiff. However the two wrongs are much different. In defamation the
reputation of plaintiff is affected and in malicious falsehood, in malicious falsehood, the
pecuniary interest of plaintiff is affected. Moreover in the case of defamation, malice in the
sense of an evil motive is not necessary. An evil motive is one of the important essential
ingredients of the wrong of malicious falsehood. Malicious falsehood has a common point
with the wrong of deceit that false statement made by the defendant causes loss to the
plaintiff. But the difference is that in the wrong of deceit, the statement is made to the
plaintiff himself and thus he suffers by acting upon it and in the case of malicious falsehood,
the false statement is made to the third party in a way that proves injurious to the plaintiffs
pecuniary interest. A malicious statement by the defendant that the plaintiffs business has
been closed down would result in pecuniary loss to the plaintiff because the natural
consequence of that is the loss of his customers. It is the malicious falsehood for which the
defendant would be liable.1
The defamation act,1952(English) makes it unnecessary to prove
special damages in case of malicious falsehood :
(a) If the words upon which action is founded are calculated to cause pecuniary loss tothe plaintiff and are published in writing or other permanent form, or
(b) If the said words are calculated to cause the plaintiff pecuniary damage in respect ofany, office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the
time of publication.2
Important form of this wrong are slander of title and slander of goods. In the wrong of slanderof title , there is a malicious statement about a persons property or business and does not
relate necessarily to his personal reputation, but to his title to property or his business or
generally to his material interest.3For example, a false assertion that the defendant has alien
over the plaintiffs good or he has a better titleto them than that of plaintiff is slander of title.
When the malicious statement relates to goods, then it is known as slander of goods, For
example allegation of defects in the goods manufactured by plaintiff. The obvious defect of
1. ractliffe vs. evans, 18922. section 3(1)3. P.K. Oswal Hosiery Mills vs. Tilak chand, A.I.R.1969 Punjab 150, 159
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
6/16
6 | P a g e
such statement is to depreciate the value of the plaintiffs good. The law permits making of
statement, however false and malicious, whereby a trader claims his good to be better than
those of his rival traders but makes it actionable when there is false and malicious
depreciation of the quality of anothers goods.
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY:_
The objective of study is to find out that how does Malicious falsehood differs from
defamation and what are the different forms of this wrong. What are the remedies available
under the present legal system. To find out the cases related to this is also an objective of the
researcher.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:-
The researcher has primarily relied on the Doctrinal Method. The research is based on
comprehensive study of online journals, documents, Books and cases. Uniform citation
method has been used throughout the project report.
HYPOTHESIS:-Malicious falsehood are the type of the statement which are made intentionally to harm the
interest of another. It is different from deceit and defamation in certain ways.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:-
1.
How malicious falsehood is different from deceit and defamation.2. What are the different wrongs under this.3. Which points should be proved to bring an action for Malicious falsehood.4. What are the different remedies available for different wrongs.
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
7/16
7 | P a g e
CHAPTERISATION
1. Deals with slander of title or slander of goods.2. Deals with passing off goods.3. Imitation of the name of anothers business.4. Other forms of injurious falsehood.
SLANDER OF TITLE OR SLANDER OF GOODS
The phrase slander title was formerly used to refer to disparagement of a persons title to
real property,4but is now a days a generic name for the disparagement of property movable or
immovable, corporeal or incorporeal.5 The disparagement need not necessarily relate to title
but may be of any description, eg. A false statement that a persons house which he was
proposing to sell was haunted.6Slander of title is a false malicious statement about a persons
property or his business or relates to his material interest.7The phrase slander of goods is
used when the disparagement relates to goods. The disparagement may be depreciating the
quality or pointing out some other defects, eg. A false statement alleging As goods to be an
infringement to Bs trademark and warning As customers not to buy them. The leading case
of ractliffe vs. Evans is an instance of a false representation about business. The4 defendant
was held liable for publishing in his news paper a false statement that the plaintiff has ceased
to carry on his business and that his firm didnt then exist, and thereby causing loss of
customers to the plaintiff.
4Brook vs. Rawl (1849) 4 Ex 521
Ravenhill vs. upcott(1869) 20 LT 233Odgers, libel and slander, p. 705Malachy vs soper (1839) 2 Bing NC 371
Gutsole vs. mathers (1836) 1 M & 1 W 495
Evans vs. Harlow (1844) 5QB 624
Hatchard vs. Mege (1887) 18 QBD771
Dunlop pneumatic tyre co. vs maison tailbot (1904) 20 TR 579
British Railway traffic & electric co. vs. CRC co. (1922) 2 KB 260
6Barret vs. associated newspapers (1907) 23 TLR 666
Casey vs. Arnot (1876) 2 CPD 24Hargovind vs. Kikabhai (1938) ILR Nag 348, AIR 1938 Nag 847PKOH Mills vs. Tilakchand, AIR 1969 Punj 150
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
8/16
8 | P a g e
POINTS TO BE PROVED IN AN ACTION FOR SLANDER OF
TITLE OR SLANDER OF GOODS
The essential constituents in the action are damage8and Malice
9. The plaintiff
must prove the following points:
(a) Publication of a false statement
That the defendant published a false statement or representation. It is for the plaintiff to prove
the falsehood or untruth of the statement while in the case of a defamatory statement the law
presumes it to be false until the contrary is proved. The statement may be oral or written and
courts in England dont make any such distinction as between libel and slander.
(B) Disparagement
That the said publication disparaged the plaintiffs property or business. If iot disparaged also
his reputation directly or indirectly, m then an action for defamation also lies. The principle
applicable to the interpretation of alleged defamatory statement also apply here.10A person is
entitled to puff his own goods, eg. By saying that his goods are the best in the market or
even that they are superior to the plaintiffs. no action lies for such a statement because a
purchaser doesnt usually rely on them to the exclusion of his own judgment. Besides if an
action is allowed it would enable traders to to use it as a means of advertisement. In White vs.
Mellin,11the defendant, a chenist was not held liable for such kind of statement. However if
the defendant make any untrue statement of fact about plaintiff, then it is another matter.12
(C) DAMAGE
That the said publication caused special damage as a natural consequence, eg; the loss of
business, customers, a bargain, property, income or profits, or costs incurred by beingcompelled to defend his title.
8Malachy vs. soper (1836) 3 Bing NC 371
9 Peter vs. Baker (1847) 3 Bing NC 371
Halsey vs. brotherhood (1880) 15 Ch D 51410
Griffiths vs benn (1911) 27 TLR 346
Cundey vs. lerwill & pike (1908) 24 TLR 58411
(1895) AC 154Leetham vs. Rank (1912) 57 sol jour 11112
Young vs. macrae (1862) 3 B & S 264
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
9/16
9 | P a g e
(D) MALICE
That the statement was published maliciously,13ie. Out of some motive other than a bona fide
claim of right.14Absence of belief in the truth of the statement will be conclusive evidence of
malice, but a merely careless publication of its not by itself enough,
REMEDY FOR SLANDER OF TITLE OR SLANDER OF GOODS
The usual remedy is an action for damages or an injunction or both.15A declaration may in
particular cases be appropriate.16The measure of damages would be pecuniary equivalent of
the loss sustained as a natural consequence of the disparagement. The amount may also vary
according to aggravating or mitigating circumstances in the case. The relief by way of
injunction is a necessary and appropriate one for preventing future injury to business. In n
action for injunction the plaintiff need not prove that damages has actually been sustained,
but it is enough if he shows that damages must or will necessarily result.17
13Shapiro vs. Lal moita (1923) 40 TLR 203
14Wren vs. weild (1869) LR 4 QB 730
White vs. Mellin (1895) AC 154
Balden vs. Shorter (1933) CH 427
Tobacco co. vs. Bonnan AIR 1928 Cal 1
Steward vs. young (1870) LR 5 CP 12215
Hatchard vs. mege (1887) 18 QBD 77116
Lewis vs. Lewis (1895) 1 All ER 100517White vs mellin (1895) Ac 154
British Railway Traffic & electric co. vs CRC Co. (1922) 2 KB 260.
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
10/16
10 | P a g e
PASSING OFF GOODS
The action for passing off goods is the remedy for a false representation tending to deceive
purchaser into believing that the goods which the defendant is selling are really the
plaintiffs.18 the representation may be by a direct statement to that effect,19 or as is more
usually the case, by conduct or by way of using the distinctive mark, name number, design,
get up or appearance of anothers goods. In an action for passing off, the plaintiff need not
prove either an intent to deceive20 or actual damage.21 It is enough if he shows that the
conduct of the defendant was calculated or likely to deceive or mislead the public, ie, the
unwary or incautious and not the careful or intelligent purchaser.22On proof of this fact that
the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction, and even to nominal damages though deception and
damages have not actually resulted.23
Originally the common law courts insisted on proof of
fraud, but courts of equity intervened by granting injunctions even in case where the imitation
of a trademark was made in ignorance, provided such imitation was likely to deceive or
mislead public. The doctrine of the equity court was accepted as a part of the common law
after the amalgamation of the two sets of courts by the judicature act. While the English and
Indian acts allow actions for infringement of registered trademark, they dont preclude the
common law remedy for the actions of passing off goods.24
POINTS TO BE PROVED IN AN ACTION FOR PASSING OFF GOODS
The plaintiff must prove that his goods were known to the public by some distinctive name,
mark, get-up, appearance, or badge, and that the defendants, use or imitation of the name,
mark etc, was likely to mislead the public the public into believing that the defendants goods
were the plaintiffs. The defendants use or imitation can obviously have no such effect when
he uses the mark for a different class of goods from the plaintiffs. where the imitation is of
18Singer Machine manufacturers vs. Wilson (1876) 2 Ch D 343
19Ainsworth vs. Walmsley (1866) LR 1 Eq 518
20Gujarat G & M Co. vs. Swadeshi MillsCo., AIR 1939 Bom 118
21Blofeld vs. Payne *(1833) 4B & Ad 410
Draper vs. Trist (1939) 3 All ER 513 (CA)
22Singer mfg. co. vs. Loog (1882) 8 AC 15
Indian dental works vs. Dhanakoti AIR 1962 Mad 12723
Draper vs. trist (1939) 3 ALL ER 513 (CA)
Reddway vs. Bentham Hemp Spinninig co. (1892) 2 QB 639
Haji jamal & co. vs Abdul Kareem & co.(1933) ILR 57 Mad 600
Malayan tobacco distributors vs. The united king tobacco, AIR 1933 PC 13824Singer machine manufacturer vs. Wilson (1876) 2 Ch D 434
Warwick tyre co. vs. new motor and general rubber co. (1910) 1 Ch 248
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
11/16
11 | P a g e
some well known device, design, or get-up, chosen by plaintiff, it would ordinarily be
fraudulent and deceptive. Where the respondent began to market a drink called pub squash
with cans and advertising similar to those of appellants soft drink solo brought in the
market one year earlier, there was no cause of action as the cans and advertising has not
become distinguishing features of solo. The test is whether the product has derived from
advertising, a distinctive character which the market recognizes.25Where name and words are
chosen to refer to an article, the position is less simple. If the name and word is peculiar and
uncommon and arbitrarily chosen by the plaintiff for his goods, he can easily establish that
the imitation of it by another was fraudulent.26However it is a different matter if the words
are ordinary or descriptive. Every person has a right to use of the English or any other
language and one trader can not complain of the use of a name by another unless it has
acquired a distinctive application to the plaintiffs goods. For instance, it was held that the
word naptha w as descriptive of the article and could not be monopolized by one trader.27
A brewer who had been in the habit of putting on his bottles, a label with the words
nourishing stout could not restrain another brewer from using these words on his labels.28
However even a descriptive name may acquire a special and exclusive application to a
persons goods. In that case he has a right to restrain anothers use of it. In Reddaway vs.
Banham,29the words camel hair belting were held to have acquired a special application to
the plaintiffs goods of that description, and the defendant was restrained for using those
words for article. It is not merely exact but even a colourable imitation of a mark or name that
will be restrained if it has a tendency to mislead the public. A name which has a special and
secondary sense with reference to a persons goods may cease to have it and become one of
general application by being employed by others. If , however it is ambiguous whether a
name is a distinctive or general one , it is the duty of the person adopting it to take care that
he does not mislead. For instance, the name corona was used by the plaintiff for a long as a
distinctive of a brand of cigars. It was held that the name being ambiguous, the defendant
should be restrained from selling a cigar of any other brand as corona unless it was made
25Thomas bear & sons vs. prayag (1940) ILR ALL 446, AIR 1940 PC 86
26Ford vs, Foster (1872) LR 7 Ch 611
Upendra nath vs. The union Drug co. AIR 1926 cal 837
Unani Dawkhana Vs. Hamdard AIR 1930 Lah 99927
Fels vs hedley (1930) 20 TLR 69
Linoleum manufg. Co. vs Nairn (1878) 7 Ch D 834
Canadian shredded wheat co. ltd. Vs. Kellog co. of Canada ltd. 1938 PCC 14328
Rogger vs. Findlater (1873) LR 17 Eq 29Coca cola co. of Canada vs. pepsi-cola co. of Canada ltd. (1942) 1 ALL ER 615 (PC)29
(1896) AC 199
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
12/16
12 | P a g e
clear to the customers that it was not the corona brand. Whether the plaintiff has
established a reputation for the name, mark, etc. is so similar as to mislead purchasers would
depend on all the circumstances of the case. The plaintiffs were manufacturing cycle bells
under the trade mark B.K. which was seen by the public. If the defendants were allowed to
make cycle bells under the mark B.K-81 there was likelihood of diversion of trade from the
plaintiffs to the defendants. It was an injury against which the plaintiffs were entitled to
injunction. If an intent to defraud is shown, it would of course go a great way to prove
probability of deception. A manufacturers of goods as well as their importer or vendor can
acquire a right to an exclusive name, mark etc. 30a person who himself has pirated anothers
trademark can not complain of an infringement of it.31 The above principle applies to the
names, titles of books, periodical, newspapers etc. an author can restrain the publication in his
name of a book not written by him. Foreign trademarks and trade names are protected in
courts of this country by reason of an international convention for protection of industrial
property. In a Bombay case, the high court allowed an action filed by pujaris or priests of a
village temple for an injunction to prevent the defendants from installing an idol with the
same name in another temple. This action bears no analogy to a passing off action but could
be regarded as one for a disturbance of the plaintiffs enjoyment of their religious office and
its emoluments. On this ground, this case falls outside the principle of free competition
recognized in the old case of the Gloucesstor grammar schoolmaster.
Plaintiff popularized the trademark Annapurnafrom his product, atta from March 1995. In
fact, that trademark was being used by defendants for his products like salt etc, much prior to
the plaintiffs product came into market. Defendant started using that trademark for Atta also
subsequent to the plaintiffs production in the name of Annapurna. It was held that defendant
was entitled to use his trademark and the court refused to grant injunction in favour of the
plaintiff.32
30Imperial tobacco co. vs Bonnan (1924) ILR 51 cal 892 PC
Meera sahib vs. Abdul Aziz (1938) ILR Mad 46631The leather cloth co. vs. American leather cloth co. (1863) 4 De GJ & S 137
32M mahendra shaw vs.tiruchy floor mills, trichy 1997(2) ALD 251
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
13/16
13 | P a g e
IMITATION OF THE NAME OF ANOTHERS
BUSINESS
On principles similar to those of an action for passing off, an action will lie against a person
for imitation of the name of anothers business if it is likely to mislead the public.33When a
person uses his own name simpliciter for for his business, there can be no right of action
against him unless an intent to mislead is also present. If however, he uses an added or
abbreviated form of his name, he will be restrained on the proof of probability of deception.
The Indian companies act enacts that a company can not be registered in a name identical
with anothers or so closely resembling it as to calculated deceive. The national bank of India
got an injunction against a new bank started under the name of The National Bank of
Indore.34 If there is no chance of deception or confusion by the use of a name, the action for
passing off doesnt lie.
USE OF A NAME
A person has no right to sue when the use of his name or that of his property by another does
not injure his trade or business. An action to restrain the defendant from using a the name for
his villa similar to that of plaintiffs was dismissed, though such use might cause
inconvenience to the plaintiff.35Similarly a person
Who was using the word street london as his telegraphic address failed to get an injunction
to prevent a bank using the same words.36However an action will lie to restrain the use of
anothers name, real or assumed if it is a business name.37This assumes that the business is
similar. A radio artist giving programs
Under the fancy name uncle Mac could not get an injunction tto restrain a manufacturer
marketing a food product under the name uncle Macs puffed wheat. 38 The use of a
persons name by another may be defamatory as where the name of a doctor of repute is used
33Leather cloth co. vs. American leather cloth co. (1865) 11 HLC 523
34National Bank of india vs. National bank of Indore (1922) 24 Bom LR 1181
35Day vs. Brownrig (1878) 10 Ch D 294
36Street vs. Union bank of spain (1885) 30 Ch D 156
37Hinnes vs Winnick (1947) Ch 708
Servile vs. Constance (1954) 1 ALL ER 662Forbes vs. kemsley newspapers (1951) 2 TLR 65638
McCullock vs. Lewis May ltd. (1947) 2 ALL ER 845
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
14/16
14 | P a g e
without his authority to puff some quack medicine.39A person can not be prevented from use
of his name, unless some special manner of using it affects anothers bus iness.
REMEDY FOR PASSING OFFThe civil remedy is an action for passing off. Besides this, a criminal prosecution is also
available for the offence of using a false trademark or property mark,40but not if the person
using the mark had no intent to defraud.41
In the action for passing off, the plaintiff can ask for
(A) Damages(B) Injunction(C)Other appropriate relief like delivering up the counterfeited articles.
Damages represent the actual loss suffered by the plaintiff. He may elect between damages
and an account of the profits obtained by the defendant after commencement of the wrong.
However, neither damages nor profits are available against an innocent defendant who was
not aware of the plaintiff in the particular name or mark at the time of the infringement.
However, an injunction is available against him.
There can be no claim foe penal and exemplary damages. The plaintiff is not bound to wait
till the infringement of a trademark is repeated or till he gives warning and it is disregarded,because, the life of a trademark depends upon the promptitude with which it is vindicated.
The court has also power to grant other appropriate relief. if the defendant is found to have
spurious articles marked with the false mark in his possession, he can be ordered to remove
the marks or deliver up the articles.42
39Dockrell vs. Dougall (1899) 80 LT 556
40Section 478-489, IPC
Mohammd Raja vs. E, AIR 1930 Oudh 36041
Section 48-86, IPC42Slazenger vs. Fentham (1889) 6RPC 531
Upmann vs. Elkann (1871) LR 12 Eq 140
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
15/16
15 | P a g e
OTHER FORMS OF MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD
Apart from the above discussed forms of malicious falsehood, an action would lie for
intentionally causing damage to a person by making any false statement or representation to
another.43For instance3, in an early case,44damages were awarded for a false statement made
by the defendant to a person to whom the plaintiff was engaged to be married, that the
plaintiff was a married woman and his own wife, then as a result plaintiff lost the marriage.
In another case,45 the plaintiff recovered damages for loss of business due to the defendant
publishing a false statement that the plaintiffs wife who was assisting him in his shop was
guilty of adultery. Similarly, an action would lie for loss due to a false statement that one of
the assistant in the plaintiffs shop had a contagious disease. These statements though not
defamatory of the plaintiff are actionable under the category of malicious falsehood.
However, no action will lie if there is no malice. Where the plaintiff, a professional pianist,
sued the proprietors of a music hall for a certain week, whereby she lost engagements else
where, it was held that the defendants made a bona fide mistake and were not liable. 46
CONCLUSION:-
Malicious falsehoods are published statements which are false without necessarily being
defamatory.
In order to prove malicious falsehood, a claimant will need to prove that:
the words are false the words were published maliciously the words published have caused special damage or financial loss to the claimant.There is a difference between Defamation and Malicious Falsehood. The Motive is irrelevant
in the case of the defamation while it is not so in the case of the malicious falsehood. There isalso a difference Between Deceit and malicious falsehood. It is also known as injurious
falsehood. There are different forms of this wrong like slander of goods or slander of title,
Passing off goods, imitation of name of others etc.
43Ractliff vs. Evans (1892) 2 Qb 524
44Shephered vs. Wakeman (1661) 1 Sid 79
Dixon vs. Holden (1869) LR 7 Eq 48845Riding vs. Smith (1876) 1 Ex D 91
46Shapiro vs. La morta (1923) 40 TLR 201
-
8/12/2019 Malicious Falsehood
16/16
16 | P a g e
BIBILIOGRAPHY:-
http://www.withyking.co.uk/uploads/news/857//defamation_&-malicious_falsehood.pdf
http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip_gb_pearsonhighhered/samplechapter/140825414X.pdf
www.thompsons.law.co.uk/factsheets/thompsons-defamation-factsheet.pdf http://www.agc.gov.my/akta/vol.%206/act%20286.pdf R K Bangia, Law Of Torts Ratan Lal Dheerajlal, Law Of Torts Rama Swami Iyer, Law of Torts
http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/factsheets/thompsons-defamation-factsheet.pdfhttp://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/factsheets/thompsons-defamation-factsheet.pdfhttp://www.agc.gov.my/akta/vol.%206/act%20286.pdfhttp://www.agc.gov.my/akta/vol.%206/act%20286.pdfhttp://www.agc.gov.my/akta/vol.%206/act%20286.pdfhttp://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/factsheets/thompsons-defamation-factsheet.pdf
top related