Legal Definitions - per quod

per quod

"Per quod" is a Latin term meaning "whereby" or "by which." In legal contexts, particularly in cases involving defamation (libel or slander), it describes a statement that is not obviously harmful or damaging on its face. For such a statement to be considered defamatory, a plaintiff must introduce additional facts and context to explain why the statement is damaging and must also prove that they suffered specific, measurable harm (known as "special damages") as a direct result. This is different from defamation "per se," where certain types of statements are considered inherently damaging without needing further explanation or proof of specific harm.

Here are some examples to illustrate "per quod":

• Example 1: Business Reputation

  A local online forum post states, "I heard that 'The Daily Grind' coffee shop recently changed its bean supplier." On its own, this statement seems innocuous. However, if "The Daily Grind" has built its entire brand and loyal customer base around sourcing rare, ethically traded beans from a specific, highly reputable farm, and the new supplier is known for mass-produced, lower-quality beans, the statement takes on a different meaning. If the coffee shop can prove that, following this post, customers stopped frequenting their establishment due to concerns about bean quality, leading to a measurable drop in sales and profits, they might have a defamation claim per quod. The additional facts about their brand identity and the new supplier's reputation are necessary to show how the seemingly neutral statement caused specific financial harm.

• Example 2: Professional Standing

  During a community meeting, a speaker remarks, "Ms. Chen was seen having a private dinner with a representative from the company bidding on the new city park project." This statement, by itself, does not inherently suggest wrongdoing. However, if Ms. Chen is a city council member who is publicly known to be the deciding vote on that specific park project, and city ethics rules strictly forbid council members from private meetings with bidders to avoid conflicts of interest, then the statement becomes potentially defamatory. If Ms. Chen is subsequently removed from the council's project committee and loses future opportunities due to the implication of impropriety, she would need to introduce the additional facts about her role and the ethics rules to demonstrate how the statement, though not overtly accusatory, caused her specific professional damage per quod.