2

I have a question about an excerpt that I read online. Here it is:

Having reviewed the posts that you have identified, I conclude that you do not have any non-frivolous defamation against any of the posters.

My doubt is related to the second clause: "do not have any non-frivolous..." Is this a case of misnegation, in which the actual meaning of the phrase is "do not have any frivolous"?

Improve this question
6
  • 2
    In terms of language rather than law, we cannot know from your example whether the double negation is intended. It's like asking if "I don't know" should really be "I do know." The answer is that it could be either.
    – chasly - supports Monica
    Commented Aug 8, 2015 at 0:22
  • 1
    It's a little weird, but the way I read it is that "you" does not have any "defamation" that is not frivolous -- ie, all of the "defamation" is frivolous.
    – Hot Licks
    Commented Aug 8, 2015 at 2:09
  • @chaslyfromUK Exactly, that was the reason why I had my doubt. But, after reading the answers and knowing how the use of language in law might be pedantic, I concluded there is no misnegation.
    – clau
    Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 17:34
  • @HotLicks - Me too!
    – chasly - supports Monica
    Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 17:37
  • Hey, I'm married to a Norwegian -- that hardly counts!! (What? You say it's "misNEGation"?? Never mind...)
    – Hot Licks
    Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 17:43

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
2

No, definitely not. Lawyers do not like to say 'no possible case', since there is practically no limit to what an ingenious plaintiff can base a complaint on. You can, however, say that any such complaint would be adjudged frivolous.

If somebody says to you "Do not use unnecessary words", do you worry about whether the intended meaning was "do not use necessary words"?

Improve this answer
2
  • @claumd Note, however, that this is not professional lawyer-speak. A Real Lawyer would write "You do not have any non-frivolous case for defamation against &c".
    – StoneyB on hiatus
    Commented Aug 8, 2015 at 0:18
  • I agree with you!
    – clau
    Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 17:19
1

My reading of the quoted language—

Having reviewed the posts that you have identified, I conclude that you do not have any non-frivolous defamation against any of the posters.

is that it is intended as a short form of this language:

Having reviewed the posts that you have identified, I conclude that you do not have legal grounds to pursue any non-frivolous action for defamation against any of the posters.

In other words, you can pursue an action for defamation in court, but any sensible judge will conclude that your action is frivolous—that is, according to definition 1b of frivolous in Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary (2003), "having no sound basis (as in fact or law)."

So the lawyer (or pseudo-lawyer) is telling the client (or pseudo-client) that any proposed action for defamation based on the specified online posts is without merit and will fail in court.

Improve this answer
0
0

In legal land, frivolous stuff is not valid. So non-frivolous stuff is valid.

So ... you do not have any non-frivolous ... means ... you do not have any valid ...

In context, ... you do not have any valid defamation [claims] against ...

In legal parlance, your screwed.

Improve this answer
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .