I hope you found my answer helpful, please click on the GREEN ACCEPT for my answer. This is necessary for me to be paid for my work and so that I can get credit for assisting you. Your question will not close, and you will still have the opportunity to follow-up if needed. Leaving a bonus and positive feedback is not required, but doing so is certainly appreciated!
If you have additional questions, please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.
Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.
There can also be a delay of an hour or more in between my answers because I may be helping other customers or taking a break.
Use of this service does not create any attorney client relationship. Any information provided is not the practice of law but intended to direct you in finding an attorney in your locale.
You can always request me through my profile at http://www.justanswer.com/profile.aspx?PF=10285032&FID=39 or beginning your question with “For PaulMJD…”
Yes, I understand what you are saying, however I did place the orders and the money was used to pay those same vendors needed for our operation. The vendor put us on a cash in advance status in one case which caused the delay. In the other two cases we were sued and were making payments to refund there money but fell behind in the payments. Calling me a lying and saying what kind of person would do this is not a fact. The are defaming me. The work was delayed. Everything was explained to them. Is the media responsible for any damages.
Definition of libel 2: use of print or pictures to harm someone's reputation. Until 1964, a person could prove that they had been libeled simply by showing that the statements in question were incorrect. In 1964, the Supreme Court decided that public officials had to prove that the statements in question were made with "actual malice"-for the purpose of harming the person's reputation. As a result of the Supreme Court case, Time, Inc. v. Firestone (1976); private individuals only have to prove negligence, rather than "actual malice," on the part of the press.
Definition of libel 3: Defamation of an individual or individuals in a published work, with malice aforethought. In litigation, the falsity of the libelous statements or representations, as well the intention of malice, has to be proved for there to be libel. In addition, financial damages to the parties so libeled must be incurred as a result of the material in question for there to be an assessment of the amount of damages to be awarded to a claimant. This is contrasted to slander, which is defamation through the spoken word.
Well I understand your point about your clients. But on the TV report the had a headline on the screen that said "Kitchen Con" meaning that the kitchen contractor was a con artist and intend to scam these people from the beginigng. The customer said I lied to them which I did not. They said they thought it was a scam.
I have dozens of pages or drawings and paper work that was prepered for each job to execute the job. We just ran into cash shortages due to vendors change in credit terms by the time we were ready to order. That along wil a slow sales period and no bank line of credit we had these delays. We were not and are not scaming anyone. I think the TV is malisious. The repeorter admitted it to me he did care about me or the customer. He jsut wanted to tell the story. They just make it much worse purposely just to sensationize the stoty. I tried to give him more facts but he did want to really hear my side of the story. He asked me about 20 other questions. They are all on tape. It would sjow the malisious nature of the reporter
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).