holding that statements that an architect was “inexperienced” and his fees were “excessive” are mere statements of opinion and do not impute unfitness to perform the duties of his employment
How later courts described this case
- holding that statements that an architect was “inexperienced” and his fees were “excessive” are mere statements of opinion and do not impute unfitness to perform the duties of his employment
- holding that a defendant’s stating that professional fees were excessive depended upon the speaker’s viewpoint, which made the comment one of opinion
- stating that “[p]ure expressions of opinion, not amounting to ‘fighting words,’ cannot form the basis of an action for defamation”
- holding that “the interferor’s knowledge of the business relationship and his intent to disturb it are requisite elements”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COMPTON, J.,
dissenting in part.
I would affirm the judgment below in all respects. In my opinion, the trial court correctly decided that Johnson is not liable for interference with the plaintiffs contract rights.