Odger's English Common Law

544 DEFAMATION.
occasion, and special damage ensue ; e.g., if he asserted
falsely that the plaintiff's goods contain harmful ingredients.
Competition between rival traders is allowed to any extent,,
so long as only lawful means are resorted to. But force and
violence must not be used, nor threats nor imputations of
fraud or dishonesty. The special damage must of course be
the necessary or natural consequence of the defendant's
words ; and this implies that the words must be such as are
capable of injuring the plaintiff in his business.
The defendant published a certificate by a Dr. Muspratt, who had
compared the plaintiffs' oil with the defendant's and deemed it inferior
to the defendant's. It was alleged that the certificate was false, and that
divers customers of the plaintiffs after reading it had ceased to deal with
the plaintiffs and gone over to the defendant. It was held that no action
lay, for the plaintiffs' oil, even if inferior to the defendant's, might still be
very good. 1
The defendants falsely and without lawful occasion published a detailed
analysis of the plaintiffs' artificial manure and of their own, and stated that
the plaintiffs' manure appeared to contain a considerable quantity of
coprolites and was altogether an article of low quality. Special damage
having resulted, it was held that the action lay. 2
The plaintiffs manufactured and sold (to the defendant among others) a
" Food for Infants." The defendant affixed to bottles of the plaintiffs'
food a label to the following effect :— " Notice. The public are recommended
to try Dr. Vance's prepared food for infants and invalids, it being
far more nutritious and healthful than any other preparation yet offered.
. . . Local Agent, Timothy White, chemist, Portsmouth." It was held
that for such disparagement no action lay. 3
It is also not actionable for a dealer in pianos to advertise that he is
selling pianos manufactured by the plaintiff at a price which is really below
cost price ;
for a dealer may offer the goods which he has in stock for sale
at whatever price he pleases, and the Court will not inquire into his
motives for selling them so cheaply.*
3. Other Words which have occasioned Loss to the Plaintif.
There are many cases in which words may produce damage
to the plaintiff in his business without in any way affecting
1 Young and others v. Macrae (1862), 3 B. & S. 264.
2 Western Counties Manure Co. v. Latves Chemical Manure Co. (1874), L. E. 9
Ex. 218.
8 White v. Mellin, [1895] A. C. 154. See also Eubbuch v. Wilkinson, [1899] 1
Q. B. 86 ; Alcott v. Millar's Karri and Jarrah Forests, Ltd. (1904), 21 Times L. B.
30 ; Lyne v. Nicholls (1906), 23 Times L. E. 86 ; and the discussion of the cases
in Odgers on Libel and Slander, 6th ed., pp. 89—91.
a Ajello v. Worsley, [1898] 1 Oh. 274.