Odger's English Common Law

SLANDER OF TITLE. 543
But a man may always assert any right of his own or of
his master or client, which at the time he honestly believes to
exist. 1
Hence whenever a man claims a right or title in
himself, it is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that he
had no such right ; he must also attempt to show that the
defendant could not honestly have believed in the existence
of the right claimed, or at least that he had no reasonable or
probable cause for so believing. 2
If there appear no reason-
able or probable cause for his claim of title, still the jury are
not bound to find malice; the defendant may have acted
stupidly, yet from an innocent motive. But if he knew at
the time that his claim was groundless, the jury will rightly
deem his interference malicious. 3
2. Words which Disparage the Goods Manufactured or
Sold by Another,
In Western Counties Manure Co. v. Laioes Chemical Manure
Co.,* Bramwell, B., laid down " the general principle," that
" an untrue statement, disparaging a man's goods, published
without lawful occasion and causing him special damage, is
actionable." But this proposition is too wide. Not every
such statement is actionable. A man may always puff his
own goods. He may even name his rivals in the trade, com-
pare his goods with theirs and assert that his own goods are
better than theirs, either generally or in some particular
respect. No action will lie for such expressions of opinion
so long as .the defendant asserts nothing as a fact about his
rivals' goods. But if a man, after lauding his own goods and
expressing his opinion that they are superior to the goods
manufactured by others, goes on to make assertions of fact
about his rivals' goods, which are proved to be untrue,
such disparagement will give rise to an action on the case,
provided the words be published without just cause or
1 Pater v. Baker (1847), 3 C. B. 831 ; Steward v. Toung (1870), L. E. 6 C. P.
122 ; Baker v. Carrick, [1894] 1 Q. B. 838 ; Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., Ltd. v.
Maison Talbot and others (1904), 20 Times L. R. 579.
a Smith v. Spooner (1810), 3 Taunt. 246.
3 Atkins v. Perrin (1862;, 3 F. & F. 179.
« (1874), L. R. 9 Ex. at p. 222.