Disgraceful lier

mr2686 · #1 05-29-2012, 02:26 PM

In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege. The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense. I think Lance is correct in his last statement.

Wymers Auction · #2 05-29-2012, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr2686

In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege. The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense. I think Lance is correct in his last statement.

I think the time and trouble to be right is the problem. I agree Scott has nothing to fear in a short day in court, but I find it hard to believe that Jeff would be so anxious to jump in the fire over misguided principles that will cost him a lot of money. I am not an autograph expert as others on the board, but the neat arrangement of signatures is something I have only seen on facsimile balls. Signatures should overrun each other and go in all sorts of directions. In my opinion.

thecatspajamas · #3 05-29-2012, 04:34 PM

James, I was thinking more of the old saying "a barking dog rarely bites," rather than evaluating Scott's chances in court (which, as others have said, seem even less cause for concern).

I might also add that it was eBay and not Scott who pulled the listing. Ebay has a system in place for reporting suspected fraud, and can choose to act on those reports or not, with or without supporting evidence (in fact, in many of the report forms, there is no way to add supporting evidence, hence the confusion with which checkbox option was appropriate to this situation). We will never know if it was Scott's report or someone else's that tipped them off, as they don't even reveal that information to the person making the report.

Wymers Auction · #4 05-29-2012, 04:37 PM

Great point Lance and with that said I am out!!!

WhenItWasAHobby · #5 05-29-2012, 05:35 PM

Getting into this a little late, I actually have to laugh out loud regarding how weak this potential lawsuit is.

First off, when I read this thread at lunch time, the eBay link was gone, so I didn't even know who the accusations were referring to. Then checking later I noticed the seller comes on this forum threatening a lawsuit. So now by his own voluntary actions, we now know who it is. If he had done nothing, very few people would have known who this person was.

Also, if the seller had a chance of winning a defamation lawsuit, he greatly diminished any chance of winning it by coming on and defending himself. The legal doctrine for this is a "limited-purpose public figure". The significance of this is that the seller voluntarily choose to thrust himself into a public controversy and now he has to prove the publisher acted with malice (deliberately making a false statement with the intent to inflict unjust harm). The burden of proof is now set to a very high level of difficulty for the potential plaintiff.

In addition, hypothetically, if the seller who came on this public forum and essentially accused the publisher of committing several torts, (or being a "tortfeasor"), the seller may be subject to a defamation suit himself if the publisher's accusations are true.

Over the years, I've observed a number of people who filed defamation/libel lawsuits and all have walked away spending a ton of money with no judgment in their favor. First off, their personal life and financial records get scrutinized down to the last detail. This becomes very embarrassing for people who committed some kind of illegal act, have issues of moral turpitude or haven't paid their income taxes, etc. Second, proving damages for libel is an arduous task since it typically requires a significant number of witnesses to testify that they were influenced by the allegedly damaging publication.

Finally, I also know for a fact that Ebay will not turn over any evidence, even when subpoenaed, regarding evidence for pulling a questionable auction or for suspending a member. Ebay can do this legally due to their privacy policy and anyone who is an Ebay member agrees to this when they sign up, so they are contractually bound by that. So if the seller is hoping for a business interference claim because of the pulled Ebay auction, he's out of luck. I also noticed someone threw out $30K as the cost of defamation lawsuit. It's been my observation that any case that goes to trial will cost at least $100K and more than likely $120K or even much higher if one parties tries to take on an "attrition warfare" strategy and drag out the litigation for years until one party is broke. Again, defamation suits are the hardest suits to prove and require a lot of litigation.

Finally, as has been stated repeatedly, truth is an absolute defense, and it's also been my observation that courts have a very low tolerance for frivolous lawsuits.

If they were taking odds in Vegas on this one, I'd load up heavy on Scott. But that's just my opinion along with everything else stated on this posting and as a disclaimer one should consult an attorney for any essential and personal legal advice.

thetruthisoutthere · #6 05-29-2012, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Getting into this a little late, I actually have to laugh out loud regarding how weak this potential lawsuit is.

First off, when I read this thread at lunch time, the eBay link was gone, so I didn't even know who the accusations were referring to. Then checking later I noticed the seller comes on this forum threatening a lawsuit. So now by his own voluntary actions, we now know who it is. If he had done nothing, very few people would have known who this person was.

Also, if the seller had a chance of winning a defamation lawsuit, he greatly diminished any chance of winning it by coming on and defending himself. The legal doctrine for this is a "limited-purpose public figure". The significance of this is that the seller voluntarily choose to thrust himself into a public controversy and now he has to prove the publisher acted with malice (deliberately making a false statement with the intent to inflict unjust harm). The burden of proof is now set to a very high level of difficulty for the potential plaintiff.

In addition, hypothetically, if the seller who came on this public forum and essentially accused the publisher of committing several torts, (or being a "tortfeasor"), the seller may be subject to a defamation suit himself if the publisher's accusations are true.

Over the years, I've observed a number of people who filed defamation/libel lawsuits and all have walked away spending a ton of money with no judgment in their favor. First off, their personal life and financial records get scrutinized down to the last detail. This becomes very embarrassing for people who committed some kind of illegal act, have issues of moral turpitude or haven't paid their income taxes, etc. Second, proving damages for libel is an arduous task since it typically requires a significant number of witnesses to testify that they were influenced by the allegedly damaging publication.

Finally, I also know for a fact that Ebay will not turn over any evidence, even when subpoenaed, regarding evidence for pulling a questionable auction or for suspending a member. Ebay can do this legally due to their privacy policy and anyone who is an Ebay member agrees to this when they sign up, so they are contractually bound by that. So if the seller is hoping for a business interference claim because of the pulled Ebay auction, he's out of luck. I also noticed someone threw out $30K as the cost of defamation lawsuit. It's been my observation that any case that goes to trial will cost at least $100K and more than likely $120K or even much higher if one parties tries to take on an "attrition warfare" strategy and drag out the litigation for years until one party is broke. Again, defamation suits are the hardest suits to prove and require a lot of litigation.

Finally, as has been stated repeatedly, truth is an absolute defense, and it's also been my observation that courts have a very low tolerance for frivolous lawsuits.

If they were taking odds in Vegas on this one, I'd load up heavy on Scott. But that's just my opinion along with everything else stated on this posting and as a disclaimer one should consult an attorney for any essential and personal legal advice.

Dan, well written!!!!

WhenItWasAHobby · #7 05-29-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Dan, well written!!!!

Thank you Christopher!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Disgraceful and a butchering job.	GrayGhost	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	0	08-17-2009 10:06 AM