CompuServe Messages

Steve, > Now it would be up to you to prove damages and intent — but the statement is libelous regardless. Again, that doesn't have to be the case. I agree that right now we have no way of knowing if the equipment was stolen. Even if we accept the fact, that the buyer did bounce a check and never paid for the computer, that doesn't mean that the computer he's now selling is the same one he got with a bounced check. (There's also the issue of the legal definition of the term "stolen"). However, I didn't say that the statement was definitely NOT libelous. I believe I said something like, "That's not necessarily the case [that it is libelous]." That is, making a disparaging remark about someone is not libelous, if the statement is true. You're allowed to call people names, if they're true. 😎 Although he would have to prove the truth of his allegations, the fact is if there were a lawsuit, the court would most definitely compare the serial numbers. But issues of proof aside, all I said was that we have no way of knowing if the statement is libelous. If the buyer is selling the same computer he got with a bounced check, then the seller is telling the truth in his message and his message is not libelous. The bottom line is that the statement could be, but isn't necessarily, libelous. Dom Fontana –> Sent from NY via AP <–