Rob bet Joe $300 that the Chicago Bears would beat the San Francisco 49ers. The day after the Bears lost, Joe went to Rob's office. He created quite a scene. He got the $300 and yelled nasty remarks about the Bears team and coach. Rob was furious. He lied to the onlookers by saying that Joe passed himself off as an accountant but that he never passed the required exams and had forged the documents. Joe lost several clients because of Rob's False statements. On these facts, which of the following is true?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Joe could successfully sue Rob for defamation because Rob made false statements about Joe's professional qualifications and character, which harmed his reputation and caused him to lose clients. Rob's statements about the Bears team and coach are not defamatory because they are opinions rather than statements of fact. Additionally, the defense of qualified privilege would not apply in this case because Rob's statements about Joe were not made in the scope of a legitimate interest or duty. Finally, Rob's statements about Joe are not defamation by innuendo because they do not imply defamatory facts, but rather are direct false statements. There is no basis for a nuisance claim based on the facts given.

Rob Bet Joe $300 That the Chicago Bears Would Beat