Knowledge of reliance

 Forseeability of loss

 Proximity (equivalent to contract) and

 Reasonableness

Duty of Care

For a delict claim to be successful, you must have foreseen the damage to your neighbour, i.e. had the person in contemplation. The classic exposition of this principle is Donoghue v. Stevenson.  This case is the (in)famous snail in the ginger beer bottle case. The case adopts a reasonable man test.

Defamation on the internet
One of the most controversial areas of online liability relates to the law of defamation. Defamation is the publication of an untrue statement that causes an injury to the reputation of a person or business. Under English law, the statement,
‘Lowers the pursuer/plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society - Sim v. Stretch 1936
The law of defamation subdivides into libel or slander in England and America. There is no such distinction in Scots Law. Damages are available where the pursuer suffers injury to feelings and damage to reputation, fame or honour.

American law
Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. 
CompuServe sued for a message hosted in one of their local forums called "Rumorville USA." CompuServe employed a third party specifically to edit and control the forum and the third party posted the edited information. CompuSe英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】rve argued that they were merely a distributor NOT publisher of the information and therefore they should not be held liable. The New York Court held that CompuServe, through contract, divested itself of control over postings by users. It was almost akin to the situation of a library.

Stratton Oakmount v. Prodigy
An anonymous user posted 3 defamatory messages on Prodigy's "Money Talk" BBS in October of 1994. The user gained access by acquiring a former Prodigy employee's identification number (unauthorised access issue). Prodigy held itself out as a "family oriented" computer network. It exercised editorial control over the content of its editorial boards. Prodigy posted "content guidelines" to its users regarding what Prodigy regarded as proper and appropriate for posting. Prodigy used a software screening program to pick up offensive language. Prodigy retained "board leaders" to enforce the guidelines. Prodigy employed technological means to delete postings that violated the guidelines.

Lumney v. Prodigy Services Company
An impostor posted vulgar notices on a bulletin board and sent threatening e-mails. The court held that Prodigy did have an editorial function but that it still had a passive role. Prodigy was not a publisher in this sense.

General issues of defamation

Who is liable for the defamatory statement?
 The defender/The author
 The publisher
 The distributor

Potential problems with 本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】