Non-payment {amusing actions}

[120]

Whilst surfing the web I stumbled upon this:

http://www.lieubears.co.uk/

Which did make me giggle.

[mlseim]

That is sort of funny.

[PappaJohn]

I think it's pathetic. I find their business tactics highly questionable, unprofessional and, in some jurisdictions, illegal. They are inviting legal action against themselves.

[bazz]

Yeh, I agree with PapaJohn.

All they needed to do (if at all), was suspend the site and maybe say why it was suspended without naming the person. In UK law, which is the relevant law in this case, they have libelled their client. However, it does seem like an amatuer outfit so they likely haven't got much money if such a suit were to be brought against them.

That said, it could put them out of business as well as having their own site removed. Oh-h-h the irony :)

I know of some companies which have considered this type of response to non-payment. Normally they only have to threaten to do so for payment, miraculously, to appear wihthin the day.

bazz

[rnd me]

In UK law, which is the relevant law in this case, they have libelled their client.

in the US, the truth is a perfectly valid and solid legal defense.
Libel cases are very difficult to win in general; the burden is on the plaintiff to prove financial loses caused from the libel.

and, reading it again, i don't see how this is libelous at all; it doesn't say anything about her or the business. It doesn't make any assertions or claims, it just reports the actions of TelePoint International Ltd.

It doesn't say the client broke any promises, it just implies that TelePoint International Ltd themselves can't live on promises. It doesn't even state that the client didn't pay. I see no libel, but perhaps the British see things differently than free-speech yankees like myself...

[abchase]

It doesn't even state that the client didn't pay.

That actually was the first sentence.

"THIS SITE HAS BEEN SUSPENDED DUE TO LACK OF PAYMENT."

Either way, I consider both parties here liable in some way. What TelPoint did, I don't agree with. Then again it could be in their Terms & Conditions.

[bazz]

in the US, the truth is a perfectly valid and solid legal defense.
Libel cases are very difficult to win in general; the burden is on the plaintiff to prove financial loses caused from the libel.


In the UK the libels laws do not have anything to do with financial loss. If someone defames you, such that your reputation has been damaged and they were in the wrong in doing so, they may be liable. depends on the judge and the legal teams involved.

How good your reputation was to start with and how much you may suffer with it tarnished only help to determine the amount in damages that you may expect to receive.

And it doesn't matter what was specifically said - even though they have done so on that page - just that if you can prove that your reputation was damaged by what was written/broadcast, you may sue. and if it was said orally, it is still part of the libel law but specifically is called slander.

bazz