Case: Tolley v. J.S Fry & Sons


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Case: Tolley v. J.S Fry & Sons

  1. 1. CASE LAW : TOLLEY V. J. S FRY & SONS Made By:Sakshi Nayak
  2. 2. Introduction    Meaning of Defamation: There is no single definition of Defamation means. Old cases have suggested that a statement will be defamatory if it ‘tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society’, or exposes the person to ‘hatred, contempt or ridicule’. It is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may givean individual, business, product, group, government, reli gion, or nation a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state.
  3. 3. Types of Defamation Slander The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of "slander“ (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech), each of which gives a common law right of action.. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. Libel Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel.
  4. 4. Innuendoes     A statement does need not make a direct criticism in order to be defamatory – a defamatory implication or innuendo can be just as dangerous. This is fairly obvious when it comes to deliberate hints: if you want to say that John Jones MP has taken bribes, you cannot escape the risk of being defamatory by saying something like ‘John Jones MP said he had not taken bribes, and we all know that politicians never lie, don’t we’. In these types of case, the courts will look at what the ordinary, reasonable reader would think that the words implied.
  5. 5. Issue Whether there was any loss of reputation of the plaintiff due to the advertisement .
  6. 6. Judgment of the Case   It was held that the innuendo that the respondent had prostituted the reputation and status of the plaintiff for advertising of his chocolate was supported by the facts and the advertisement was, therefore ,defamatory for a man in his position. The House of Lords did not think the message delivered as such was a false one. It was only the context of an advertisement that the reader was given a wrong impression which was defamatory to the claimant.
  7. 7. Ratio Decendi    The reputation of an amateur golfer was diminished through an undertaking that alleged that he had been paid for the use of his image in an caricatureadvertisement. He argued that anyone seeing the advertisement would assume he had both consented to and been paid for it, and that this would suggest that he had compromised his amateur status. Therefore the respondent is liable for compensation to the plaintiff.
  8. 8. Thank You