Lent v. Huntoon

470 A.2d 1162 (1983)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P worked for D from 1964 until his employment was terminated in 1977 -- a period of thirteen years. At the time he was hired, in 1964, P informed D that he was on probation for a criminal conviction and that he had once been confined to the base for a period of time for a minor offense during his service in the Air Force. D hired P with full knowledge of these events. In 1977, P informed D that he would be leaving his job as he was moving to Florida as soon as he and his wife could sell their house. He offered to stay on long enough to train his successor. Shortly thereafter, and without any prior notice, D told P that he was discharged. P was unable to sell his house and so decided to remain in Rutland. In August of 1977, he started his own business equipment sales and service business. Early in March of 1978, P was awarded a cash register sales, and service franchise formerly held by D. D then sent a letter to the cash register franchise customers who were formerly serviced by D and for whose business both P and D were then vying. The letter indicated that P had been discharged for 'sound business reasons.' P sued D and asserted that the letter, taken in its totality, was defamatory since it implied that he was fired because of some dishonesty or incompetence. There was evidence that the letter caused P to become estranged from some of his customers, to suffer physical and emotional malaise, and to neglect his business to the point where it nearly collapsed. P also became aware of numerous verbal statements made by D that asserted that P had a criminal 'record a mile long,' had stolen merchandise from D, had stolen money from the cash register of D, was an incompetent serviceman, and was generally untrustworthy. Most of these statements were made by D in competitive business situations. Some of the statements were made even after P's lawsuit was initiated. Testimony indicated that the Ds were fully satisfied with P's work prior to termination and had never complained about any thefts by P and Ds also knew he intended to leave his job voluntarily and was not fired. P got the jury verdict and D appealed.