Legal Definitions - slander per quod

Slander per quod refers to a spoken defamatory statement that is not inherently harmful or damaging on its face. Instead, its defamatory nature becomes apparent only when additional, external facts or context are known and understood by the audience.

Unlike "slander per se" (where the spoken words are so obviously damaging that harm is presumed), a person claiming slander per quod must prove two key elements:

• That the statement, when combined with specific extrinsic facts, was indeed defamatory.
• That they suffered actual, specific damages as a direct result of the statement. These damages often involve demonstrable financial loss, such as lost income, business opportunities, or other measurable harm to their reputation.

Here are some examples illustrating slander per quod:

• Example 1 (Professional Reputation): A competitor at a professional conference publicly states, "I saw Mr. Davies leaving the company's research lab with a large, unmarked box of documents late last night."

  Explanation: On its own, this statement might seem like a simple observation. However, if Mr. Davies is a lead scientist for a rival company, and it is widely known that the company's research lab contains highly confidential trade secrets, then the statement, combined with these extrinsic facts, implies corporate espionage or theft of intellectual property. To win a slander per quod case, Mr. Davies would need to prove he suffered actual harm, such as losing his job, being unable to secure new employment, or a significant decline in his professional standing due to the false implication.

• Example 2 (Financial Standing): During a community meeting, a resident falsely announces, "I heard Ms. Chen's construction company is having trouble paying its suppliers and might be filing for bankruptcy soon."

  Explanation: While potentially embarrassing, a statement about financial difficulty might not always be legally defamatory for everyone. However, if Ms. Chen owns a construction company that relies heavily on its reputation for financial stability to secure large contracts and obtain credit, and the statement is false, then the extrinsic fact of her profession and business model makes the statement damaging. It implies financial mismanagement or insolvency, directly threatening her ability to operate. Ms. Chen would need to prove actual financial losses, such as losing a major contract or being denied credit, directly resulting from the false rumor.