Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 20
1
2 "Incompetence and want of judgment. But just as
3 imputations on the competence of a professional
4 man may be injurious to his reputation as such
5 without reflecting on his character, an
6 imputation of incompetence or want of judgment
7 in his trade may be defamatory of a trader
8 without reflecting on his character as a man.
9 Such might be an imputation that he had been
10 careless in the manufacture of goods, or
11 inefficient in the choice of goods to stock."
12
13 We would add to that: negligent or inefficient of the
14 choice of goods to sell to the public.
15
16 One can pass over page 38, where a distinction is made
17 between -----
18
19 MR. MORRIS: Sorry, can I just ask what was that word after
20 "negligent"?
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: "...inefficient in his choice of goods to
23 sell to the public".
24
25 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I can pass over page 38, I think, which
26 draws the well known distinction between slander of goods
27 and libel or slander of a trader in his trading capacity.
28 If I say that those goods are not fit for their purpose, as
29 one of the cases which you have in the bundle was, because
30 they do not do this, that or the other, that may be a false
31 statement about the goods which, on proof of malice and
32 probability of financial damage, would be actionable, but
33 not otherwise, not defamatory of the trader, without the
34 addition of some kind of implication at least that he has
35 been inefficient or negligent at the lowest. That is as we
36 understand it. Of course, as that Scottish case -- I think
37 it is a Scottish case ---
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Baker.
40
41 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, Broomfield v. Greig I mean, the adulterated
42 bread case -- suggests that if you say of somebody's food
43 that it is apt to kill the man's customers, then in all
44 probability that is a defamation. We would submit --
45 although it is not what the case actually says, because it
46 is an old case and the reasons are not explained -- not
47 simply because that is a very, very grave thing to say
48 about a trader, but because if the goods are that
49 dangerous, then any reasonable reader is going to say to
50 himself, "Well, surely he must know about it or, at the
51 very least, he must be reckless", in which case you have a
52 direct defamation of the trader; if those things are that
53 bad, he should and must have known about it. It is quite
54 different when one is talking about, for example, some
55 defect in a tallow candle syphon, if I have it right.
56
57 My Lord, there is another passage on page 39 at
58 paragraph 72. Gatley has a habit, which is sometimes
59 useful, of gathering together lots and lots of different
60 examples, sometimes, we would submit, to good effect.
