The plaintiff, M, quit her job because her then-employer, Mr. C, ...

[humphriesbr@me.com]

The plaintiff, M, quit her job because her then-employer, Mr. C, made unwelcome sexual advances and her career was not advanced as promised. Subsequently, Mr. C, on his own initiative, called her past employer, her present employer, and an instructor at vocational school and said that M was a thief, a false statement. As a result of that call, M lost her new job. Which of the following is true?
◦ Technically, M could sue Mr. C for libel.
◦ Mr. C's statement is defamatory by innuendo.
◦ Mr. C could successfully use the defence of qualified privilege.
◦ Mr. C could successfully use the defence of fair comment.
◦ Mr. C could be sued successfully for defamation even though the defamatory words were not written down.

[jlaineee]

A FREE account is required to view all solutions! Click to Register

Login with Facebook Login with Google Login with Email

Lorsum iprem. Lorsus sur ipci. Lorsem sur iprem. Lorsum sur ipdi, lorsem sur ipci. Lorsum sur iprium, valum sur ipci et, vala sur ipci. Lorsem sur ipci, lorsa sur iprem. Valus sur ipdi. Lorsus sur iprium nunc, valem sur iprium. Valem sur ipdi. Lorsa sur iprium. Lorsum sur iprium. Valem sur ipdi. Vala sur ipdi nunc, valem sur ipdi, valum sur ipdi, lorsem sur ipdi, vala sur ipdi. Valem sur iprem nunc, lorsa sur iprium. Valum sur ipdi et, lorsus sur ipci. Valem sur iprem. Valem sur ipci. Lorsa sur iprium. Lorsem sur ipci, valus sur iprem. Lorsem sur iprem nunc, valus sur iprium.

Answer Preview

Only 29% of students answer this correctly

[humphriesbr@me.com]

TYSM

[Joy Chen]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it