Demand letters

What is the name of your state? IN

--

Is it appropriate to request monetary damages in a demand letter for slander per se, along with a retratcion and apology.

Is it ever unwise to request monetary damages in a demand letter?

bfoster said:

What is the name of your state? IN

--

Is it appropriate to request monetary damages in a demand letter for slander per se, along with a retratcion and apology.

Is it ever unwise to request monetary damages in a demand letter?

Click to expand...

My response:

No, it's not unwise. However, just coming up with a figure out of thin air is not good enough. There must be some "basis" for the amount you're demanding - - and then you should state that "basis" and how the amount was calculated.

If you suffered damages based upon a "per se" violation, then the amount stated as the minimum in the Statute would be your guide.

IAAL

I'm still looking for a statute that addresses damages specifically for this type of action...I can't find it.

You're saying, since general damages are presumed in a per se action, the reason for requesting money could be, say, damage to reputation and emotional distress... I just need to figure out where there are guidlines for the amount. Or am I off base in my thinking?

bfoster said:

I'm still looking for a statute that addresses damages specifically for this type of action...I can't find it.

You're saying, since general damages are presumed in a per se action, the reason for requesting money could be, say, damage to reputation and emotional distress... I just need to figure out where there are guidlines for the amount. Or am I off base in my thinking?

Click to expand...

My response:

You say, "damages to reputation". Again, that's too vague and ambiguous. What reputation?

Let's say you are a Marimba player in a band. You make $50.00 each night of your 3 week gig at XYZ Restaurant and Nightclub.

Someone says, "You know, John the Marimba player for that Band playing at XYZ Restaurant really sucks. He couldn't play a note if his life depended upon it. He's really a lousy Marimba player."

Then, that information gets back to the owner of the XYZ Restaurant who's afraid of losing restaurant and club business. He believes the rumors, because he doesn't know a Marimba from a tuna fish. So, he fires you on the second night of your 21 day gig. You're out XXX dollars. Your reputation as a terrific Marimba player has been severely damaged, if not completely ruined.

Okay, now you sue that person who caused that untrue rumor (that's your basis) and you sue for XXX dollars in damages (the balance amount for 19 days left on your 21 day gig).

IAAL

If the damage is presumed by statute, and there are no actual damages (as in your example) -- what would be the basis for a jury awarding a plaintiff damages in such a case.

For example, a person is accused of stealing -- an indictable offense, and therefor actionable per se in Indiana (and most states, I'd guess), which means that like a libel case, injury need not be prooved (which is normally done by showing that money was lost).

If you don't need to proove injury -- what's the basis for relief? Wouldn't it be compensation for injury to the reputation, since that is the basis of the tort? Does pain and suffering come in to play? Everything I've read says that special or actual damages don't need to be plead.

bfoster said:

If the damage is presumed by statute, and there are no actual damages (as in your example) -- what would be the basis for a jury awarding a plaintiff damages in such a case.

For example, a person is accused of stealing -- an indictable offense, and therefor actionable per se in Indiana (and most states, I'd guess), which means that like a libel case, injury need not be prooved (which is normally done by showing that money was lost).

If you don't need to proove injury -- what's the basis for relief? Wouldn't it be compensation for injury to the reputation, since that is the basis of the tort? Does pain and suffering come in to play? Everything I've read says that special or actual damages don't need to be plead.

Click to expand...

My response:

You are correct, that in a "libel per se" action, actual damages are not pled; however, in addition to punitive damages - - which are assessed by the court or jury, "actual damages" can still be pled in addition to other damages. The statutes just say that they don't have to be pled. The problem becomes, "How much is my reputation in the community worth?" The "automatic" damages are left up to the court, or a jury, to determine.

Now, let's say you're in the auto repair business. Someone says that you use stolen parts to repair cars, and that you're a thief. The rumor spreads like wildfire. The statement is, of course, untrue and you can prove all of your parts purchases with receipts from reputable parts suppliers.

But, as bad luck would have it, people start to believe the rumors that you're a thief because they believe that where there's smoke, there's a fire. Your auto repair business takes a nose dive, and it's Bankruptcy City, next stop.

So, not only are you entitled to punitive damages for the "per se" violation of being wrongly labeled as a criminal and a thief, but you're also entitled to the actual, provable, damages to your auto repair reputation and business losses.

IAAL

Thanks for answering my questions. And being respectful at the same time.

I've been reading through the forum and it's totally amazing what ********* some of these people are. It's no wonder lawyers get bad names.

Thanks again.

bfoster said:

Thanks for answering my questions. And being respectful at the same time.

I've been reading through the forum and it's totally amazing what ********* some of these people are. It's no wonder lawyers get bad names.

Thanks again.

Click to expand...

**A: and are you aware that the majority of the contributors on this website are not lawyers?

Yes, I'm aware. But it's perception that counts...after reading the posts, yeah, it becomes obvious -- to me -- maybe -- that most of these people aren't lawyers -- but will everyone? The perception they walk away with from here is likely to transfer to "lawyer"

It's unfortunate, but it just perpetuates stereotypes. Maybe those of you who are lawyers should tell the wannabes to shut their mouths or treat people with a little respect. Even the ones who are morons.

bfoster said:

Yes, I'm aware. But it's perception that counts...after reading the posts, yeah, it becomes obvious -- to me -- maybe -- that most of these people aren't lawyers -- but will everyone? The perception they walk away with from here is likely to transfer to "lawyer"

It's unfortunate, but it just perpetuates stereotypes. Maybe those of you who are lawyers should tell the wannabes to shut their mouths or treat people with a little respect. Even the ones who are morons.

Click to expand...

**A: believe me we have tried.

But I keep sneaking in the back door

Pfaffing85690 said:

But I keep sneaking in the back door

Click to expand...

**A: yes, so true, so true.