Advice on the definition of slander needed please

BillieT

Hope this is ok to post here.


We recently bought a double bed frame from a well known store. On the box it said it was approx 202cm long. It's actually only 190cm.
Most double bed mattresses are 200. So as the mattress actually sits into the frame, there is a significant difference between the size of the mattress and the base.
I have been in contact through messenger on their facebook page for 4 days, and they kept saying that the area manager will be in touch.

Whats annoying is, the fact that they are reading my messages, and not answering them tiill 8 or 9 hours later, or even the next day.
Then today after 4 days, I put a post on my own facebook page asking if anyone had a number for them as I couldn't find one anywhere, and whoever was manning the facebook page was ignoring me.
In the meantime I found a number for the Cork branch, but their mailbox was full, and I said 'probably full of people messaging to complain'
I also posted a message on their Facebook page complaining about them not getting back to me.
Well I guess that got their attention, and I immediately got a pm saying that the area manager tried to call me this evening, and the number was out of service.

I stupidly mis-typed a digit. So I forwarded the right number with apologies.

They said the area manager will phone me again tomorrow, in business hours. Then I got this tirade about me slandering them on facebook - I said it wasn't slander if it was true... am I right?
I bought it for visitors coming on Monday, and I still have no bed for them. I am soooo frustrated.


UPDATE: Today I had a phone call from the area manager of the store, he couldn't have been more helpful, and has invited us to the store, where they will open up some of the beds in stock and measure them. He seems to think there may be a problem with the measurements, and is hoping its confined to just one bed. (It would have to be our one)

IANAL (I am not a lawyer)

You "slandered" them on FaceBook?

You slander someone verbally - you libel them in print...

BillieT

StevieHardesty wrote: »

IANAL (I am not a lawyer)

You "slandered" them on FaceBook?

You slander someone verbally - you libel them in print...

But I thought it was only slander/Libel if you were lying

I wasn't commenting on the truth, or untruth, of any statement by anybody - simply pointing out the limits of the managers knowledge.

BillieT

StevieHardesty wrote: »

I wasn't commenting on the truth, or untruth, of any statement by anybody - simply pointing out the limits of the managers knowledge.

Oh ok - thanks

yosser hughes

It's a;; classed as defamation. slander and libel.

(1) The tort of libel and the tort of slander—

(a) shall cease to be so described, and

(b) shall, instead, be collectively described, and are referred to in this Act, as the “ tort of defamation ”.

(2) The tort of defamation consists of the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person), and “ defamation ” shall be construed accordingly.

(3) A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reasonably be understood as referring to him or her.

(4) There shall be no publication for the purposes of the tort of defamation if the defamatory statement concerned is published to the person to whom it relates and to a person other than the person to whom it relates in circumstances where—

(a) it was not intended that the statement would be published to the second-mentioned person, and

(b) it was not reasonably foreseeable that publication of the statement to the first-mentioned person would result in its being published to the second-mentioned person.

(5) The tort of defamation is actionable without proof of special damage.

BillieT

yosser hughes wrote: »

It's a;; classed as defamation. slander and libel.

(1) The tort of libel and the tort of slander—

(a) shall cease to be so described, and

(b) shall, instead, be collectively described, and are referred to in this Act, as the “ tort of defamation ”.

(2) The tort of defamation consists of the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person), and “ defamation ” shall be construed accordingly.

(3) A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reasonably be understood as referring to him or her.

(4) There shall be no publication for the purposes of the tort of defamation if the defamatory statement concerned is published to the person to whom it relates and to a person other than the person to whom it relates in circumstances where—

(a) it was not intended that the statement would be published to the second-mentioned person, and

(b) it was not reasonably foreseeable that publication of the statement to the first-mentioned person would result in its being published to the second-mentioned person.

(5) The tort of defamation is actionable without proof of special damage.

Thanks - But I'm afraid that doesn't help me at all. I have no idea what it all means

Rows Grower

BillieT wrote: »

Thanks - But I'm afraid that doesn't help me at all. I have no idea what it all means

Sleep on it.

BillieT

Rows Grower wrote: »

Sleep on it.

There is no need for that - I am looking for serious advice:(

Mod
Rows grower made a reasonable suggestion
Pls note that legal advice may not be given on this forum
Leaving open for general discussion

Viscount Aggro

Slander cases are for rich people.... forget about it.

Rows Grower

BillieT wrote: »

There is no need for that - I am looking for serious advice:(

Try and condense your story, stick to the facts and the timeline and I promise I won't make another joke.

BillieT

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

Slander cases are for rich people.... forget about it.

thank you so much

BillieT

Rows Grower wrote: »

Try and condense your story, stick to the facts and the timeline and I promise I won't make another joke.

Maybe don't read my posts. Then there is no fear of you stressing me out more than I already am:(

BillieT

BillieT wrote: »

There is no need for that - I am looking for serious advice:(

Mod
Rows grower made a reasonable suggestion
Pls note that legal advice may not be given on this forum
Leaving open for general discussion

seriously? I thought it was rude tbh. He already said it was a joke.



I wasn't looking for legal advice. Just advice


I am not great at arguing my case, and I really just wanted to hear what others would have done

Peregrinus

Cutting through all the heated discussion, the question the OP ask is this:

BillieT wrote: »

Then I got this tirade about me slandering them on facebook - I said it wasn't slander if it was true... am I right?

You are wrong.

A statement about a person (or persons) is defamatory if it tends to injure their reputation in the eyes of ordinary people.

So, if I said "BillieT is a thief", that's defamatory, since it will generally harm your reputation if people think you are or may be a thief. It is defamatory whether the statement is true or false.

If you sue me for defamation, you need to prove (a) that I made the statement you are complaining about to at least one person (other than you) and (b) that the statement tends to harm your reputation (which is self-evident in the case of a statement like "BillieT is a thief"). You do not need to prove that the statement is untrue; you do not have to prove your innocence of the charge I have made against you.

Once you have proved all that, attention now shifts to me; do I have any defence to the action for defamation? There are several defences that I could raise; one of them is the defence of justification - yes, I said you were a thief, but I was justifed in saying that because you are, in truth, a thief. If I choose to run with this defence, it's up to me to prove that you are a thief, which may be easy, if you have previously been convicted of theft, or very difficult, if you haven't been. But, either way, I have to prove that you are thief; you do not have to prove that you are not.

So, it's not correct to say that a true statement cannot be defamatory; it is defamatory if it injures your reputation, but justified if it is shown to be true.

Rows Grower

BillieT wrote: »

Maybe don't read my posts. Then there is no fear of you stressing me out more than I already am:(

It's a public forum.

BillieT

Peregrinus wrote: »

Cutting through all the heated discussion, the question the OP ask is this:


You are wrong.

A statement about a person (or persons) is defamatory if it tends to injure their reputation in the eyes of ordinary people.

So, if I said "BillieT is a thief", that's defamatory, since it will generally harm your reputation if people think you are or may be a thief. It is defamatory whether the statement is true or false.

If you sue me for defamation, you need to prove (a) that I made the statement you are complaining about to at least one person (other than you) and (b) that the statement tends to harm your reputation (which is self-evident in the case of a statement like "BillieT is a thief"). You do not need to prove that the statement is untrue; you do not have to prove your innocence of the charge I have made against you.

Once you have proved all that, attention now shifts to me; do I have any defence to the action for defamation? There are several defences that I could raise; one of them is the defence of justification - yes, I said you were a thief, but I was justifed in saying that because you are, in truth, a thief. If I choose to run with this defence, it's up to me to prove that you are a thief, which may be easy, if you have previously been convicted of theft, or very difficult, if you haven't been. But, either way, I have to prove that you are thief; you do not have to prove that you are not.

So, it's not correct to say that a true statement cannot be defamatory; it is defamatory if it injures your reputation, but justified if it is shown to be true.

Thank you. I should have mentioned in the OP too that the store in question posted a question on their facebook page asking if people go into their store to browse, and come out having bought loads.

Lots of people said yes some said no (and gave reasons why), I said I used to, but not any more after whats happened with this bed. When you have a problem, they don't want to know (words to that effect)

Peregrinus

What you have said, as reported here, is not defamatory and there is zero chance that they will pursue you for it through legal avenues. In complaining about it they are just venting. Ignore it and focus on what matters to you, which is getting the bed you want.

BillieT

Peregrinus wrote: »

What you have said, as reported here, is not defamatory and there is zero chance that they will pursue you for it through legal avenues. In complaining about it they are just venting. Ignore it and focus on what matters to you, which is getting the bed you want.

Thank you Peregrinus - we got it all sorted yesterday