Asked by Jeffrey Morales on Jul 17, 2024
Verified
In the case of WeGo Kayaking Ltd. v. Sewid,
A) malice defeated the defences of qualified privilege and fair comment.
B) Sevid successfully argued the defence of qualified privilege.
C) Sevid successfully argued the defence of fair comment.
D) there was no defamation because innuendo cannot be defamatory.
E) there was no defamation because the people alleging defamation were dishonest.
Innuendo
An implied statement that is detrimental to another.
Malice
The intention to do harm or act with ill will towards someone.
Qualified Privilege
A legal immunity granted under certain conditions, protecting individuals from liability for statements made without malice.
- Differentiate among diverse categories of torts, notably conversion, defamation, deceit, nuisance, and negligence.
Verified Answer
AV
Arianna VizcainoJul 20, 2024
Final Answer :
A
Explanation :
In WeGo Kayaking Ltd. v. Sewid, malice was a key factor that defeated the defences of qualified privilege and fair comment. When malice is proven in a defamation case, it can negate these defences, leading to a finding of liability for defamation.
Learning Objectives
- Differentiate among diverse categories of torts, notably conversion, defamation, deceit, nuisance, and negligence.