Stamford Engineering Inc and Cornell Code Corporations - Essay Example

The accusation is not true and causes Cornell to lose its customers to Stanford.

The issue to be determined is whether Stanford’s allegation constituted sufficient ground for a suit on defamation.
The legal definition of defamation involves fala se accusation against a person, which has the potential to adversely affect the victim’s reputation or competitive advantage in trade. To establish a case on a defamation basis, the plaintiff must prove several essential elements. First, the plaintiff must have been subjected to a “defamatory statement” (Beatty and Samuelson, p. 78). The statement must have been false and the defendant must have communicated the statement leading to injury to the plaintiff. Defamation can be either slander or libel (Beatty and Samuelson, p. 78).

In this case, Stanford made an advertisement whose claim was defamatory. The claim was false and caused Cornell its customers who went to Stanford’s business, thereby causing financial losses, in revenues and profits, to Cornell. This forms a legal ground for defamation as was held in the case of Bose Corporation v Consumers Union of the United States (Jernings, p. 289).

Cornell could therefore sue on grounds of defamation that could be either libel or slander, depending on Sanford’s mode of advertisement. If Stanford used a permanent medium such as an audio recording or print media, then Cornell could sue for injuries on grounds of libel. An unrecorded oral advertisement could however lead to a suit on grounds of slander.
Flow’s case
The case involves Dan, a driver of EZ Delivery Company, who leaves his car in neutral mode and does not set the brakes. The car then rolls while Dan makes a delivery and crashes into a petrol station, causing flames of fire. The fire spreads to a close building that collapses, causing injury to Flow.

The facts of the case identify negligence that defines a breach of a duty of care by a party to another, leading to injury. This is because a driver owes elements, in his environment, a duty of care and Dan’s failure to set the brakes identifies a breach of his duty of care to people in his environment.

In order recto ver damage from Dan, Flow must therefore prove that Dan was the vehicle’s driver this identifies the duty of care. She must also show that Dan breached this duty by failing to set the brakes and that Dan’s negligence was the cause of her injury. Flo must further establish that the incident was foreseeable and that she suffered injuries from the incident. Prove of these factors, essential elements of negligence institutes liability towards damages as was held in the case of RA v Superior Court (Beatty and Samuelson, p. 93- 93, 93). Read More