Amarjeet and Doris were competitors in the widget industry.In an over-exuberant effort to take over her business, Amarjeet told Doris that he would spread false and unflattering rumours about her unless she sold her company to him.Doris was quite frightened by Amarjeet's behaviour but she did not sell her company to Amarjeet.She has now sued him for the tort of intimidation.Amarjeet has argued in defence that he acted solely for the purpose of furthering his own financial interests, and not out of a desire to hurt Doris.The evidence indicates that he is telling the truth in that respect.He also resists liability on the basis that he never actually did defame Doris as he had threatened to do.Will either of those defences protect Amarjeet from liability? Is there any other basis upon which he can avoid liability? Explain your answers.
Correct Answer:
Verified
View Answer
Unlock this answer now
Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge
Q65: Identify and briefly explain the considerations that
Q66: Khalid was injured while trespassing on property
Q67: What interest is the tort of defamation
Q68: What is the defence of justification? To
Q69: You and I are competitors in the
Q70: Siegfried owns a rattlesnake that he keeps
Q71: Briefly explain the difference between the tort
Q72: As a general rule, the tort of
Q73: Bouba received special permission under the Radio
Q74: "To succeed in an action for intimidation,
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents