Posts Tagged ‘Legal Information’

Hilary Young, “Adding Insult to Injury in Corporate Defamation Damages”

September 3, 2013

Hilary Young (University of New Brunswick – Fredericton – Faculty of Law) has posted “Adding Insult to Injury in Corporate Defamation Damages”. Here’s the abstract:

The law of defamation treats corporations almost identically to natural persons. In most common law countries, corporations may bring defamation actions, and the elements are the same for corporate plaintiffs as for natural person plaintiffs, as are the defences. So too, are the principles for awarding damages.

Both people and corporations have valuable reputations worthy of legal protection. However, given the significantly different effect of reputational injury on humans than on corporations, the principles applied in quantifying damages to each should differ. Aggravating factors relating to emotional injuries should not be considered in assessing reputational injury to corporations, because corporations cannot suffer such injuries. Specifically, I focus on the relevance to the quantification of damages of: a) the defendant’s failure to apologize; b) the defendant’s malice; and c) the aim of vindicating reputation. Examples are drawn primarily from Canadian law but also from the laws of other common law countries.

The article first argues against treating a defendant’s failure to apologize to a corporation as a factor aggravating damages. The only relevance to a corporation of an apology is as a form of setting the record straight. Thus, an apology may mitigate damages but a failure to apologize will often have no effect on damages. Yet the law treats a failure to apologize as aggravating damages.

Similarly, the defendant’s malice is considered a factor aggravating damages, but since corporations cannot be upset, embarrassed or insulted, it is not clear that malice should be relevant to calculating their compensatory damages.

Finally, courts should no longer award damages in order to vindicate corporate reputation. The interest in human dignity may justify the vindicatory goal of defamation law. However, given that corporations have no dignity to protect, and given a number of problems associated with attempting to award damages to vindicate reputation, it is not justifiable to award corporations damages to vindicate their reputations.

Download a pdf copy of the paper via SSRN here.

Marko Milanovic, “Domestic Court Decisions as Sources of International Law and Their Effects on the International Plane”

January 31, 2013

Marko Milanovic (University of Nottingham School of Law) has posted “Domestic Court Decisions as Sources of International Law and Their Effects on the International Plane”. The abstract reads:

This was an introductory paper at the Third ILDC Colloquium, held at the University of Glasgow, 19 May 2011. It broadly covers two sets of issues: first, the place of the decisions of domestic courts within the doctrine of sources in modern international law, and second, the myriad of effects that these decisions can have on the international plane. It discusses inter alia the role of domestic courts as agents of international legal development and socializers of states through norm internalization, as well as their roles in generating, avoiding or resolving international disputes and checking international law and institutions against other norms and values.

Download a pdf copy of the paper at SSRN here.

Using Social Media Tools in a Practical and Ethical Way

June 2, 2012

 I had the privilege of co-presenting with David Whelan, Manager, Legal Information, Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) at the LSUC’s 7th Annual Solo and Small Firm Conference and Expo (Two-Day Program) (View Program Agenda (PDF)).  We presented on the topic of  “Using Social Media Tools in a Practical and Ethical Way”.

See David Whelan’s Blog for a copy of his excellent Power Point slideshow and paper.

Here’s my Power Point slideshow:

Here’s a link to a pdf copy of my paper: Using Social Media Tools in a Practical and Ethical Way. Pribetic

Kudos to the Program Co-Chairs for organizing an informative and interesting conference:

Michele Allinotte, Allinotte Law Office (Blog: http://yourcornwalllawyer.com/category/blog/and

Daniel Pinnington, Vice President, Claims Prevention & Stakeholder RelationsLawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company (LawPro) (Blog: http://avoidaclaim.com/

David Rolph, “Corporations’ Right to Sue for Defamation: An Australian Perspective”

October 6, 2011

David Rolph (University of Sydney – Faculty of Law) has posted “Corporations’ Right to Sue for Defamation: An Australian Perspective”, Entertainment Law Review, Vol. 22, pp. 195-200, 2011/Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 11/51. Here is the abstract:

As the United Kingdom undergoes defamation law reform, it might be useful to consider recent Australian developments. Across Australia, since 2006, corporations have had the right to sue for defamation severely curtailed. After five years of operation, it is possible to make an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of this reform. This article analyses recent cases in which corporations have been forced to rely on alternative causes of action, which previously would have been dealt with as defamation claims. It argues that the reform is sound as a matter of principle and policy but that the particular form of the legislative provision requires refinement. In addition, this article points out that there have been unintended and undesirable consequences to this reform.

Download a copy of the paper via SSRN here.

Tanya J. Monestier, “Transnational Class Actions and the Illusory Search for Res Judicata”

June 1, 2011

Tanya J. Monestier (Roger Williams University School of Law) has published “Transnational Class Actions and the Illusory Search for Res Judicata”, Tulane Law Review, Vol. 86, p. 1, 2011/Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 105.  The abstract reads:

The transnational class action – a class action in which a portion of the class consists of non-U.S. claimants – is here to stay. Defendants typically resist the certification of transnational class actions on the basis that such actions provide no assurance of finality for a defendant, as it will always be possible for a non-U.S. class member to initiate subsequent proceedings in a foreign court. In response to this concern, many U.S. courts will analyze whether the “home” courts of the foreign class members would accord res judicata effect to an eventual U.S. judgment prior to certifying a U.S. class action containing foreign class members. The more likely the foreign court is to recognize a U.S. class judgment, the more likely that an American court will include those foreigners in the U.S. class action.

Current scholarship accepts propriety of the res judicata analysis, but questions the manner in which the analysis is carried out. This Article breaks from the existing literature by arguing that the dynamics of class litigation render the res judicata effect of an eventual U.S. class judgment inherently unknowable to a U.S. court ex ante. In particular, I argue that certain “litigation dynamics” – specifically the process of proving foreign law via experts, the principle of party prosecution, and the litigation posture of the action – complicate the transnational class action landscape and prevent a court from accurately analyzing the res judicata issues at play. This is exacerbated by the “structural dynamics” of class litigation: the complexity of foreign law on the recognition and enforcement of judgments; the newness of class action law in most foreign countries; and the distinction between general and fact-specific grounds for non-enforcement of a U.S. class judgment. Accordingly, I argue that U.S. courts should abandon their illusory search for res judicata. Instead, courts should avoid the res judicata problem altogether by employing an opt-in mechanism for foreign class plaintiffs, whereby such plaintiffs are not bound unless they affirmatively undertake to be bound by U.S. class judgment. An opt-in mechanism for foreign plaintiffs also provides several advantages over the current opt-out mechanism: it allows all foreign claimants to participate in U.S. litigation if they so choose; it provides additional protections for absent foreign claimants; it respects international comity; and it sufficiently deters defendant misconduct.

A copy of the paper is available for download at SSRN here.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,831 other followers

%d bloggers like this: