- Joined
- Apr 2, 2011
- Messages
- 6,182
- Reaction score
- 6,699
I am not a lawyer, so others can provide more accurate replies. For defamation I believe there has to be intent. In other words, it is insufficient that the NFL lied, you would need to prove that they lied deliberately and with the intent to damage Brady. Lawyers opining on this issue all seem to agree that defamation is an especially high hurdle that is rarely achieved. Also, I don't think Brady is going to suffer much financially (his gear has in fact increased in sales) and he would be satisfied with getting the NFL findings and penalty tossed. I don't really think he wants monetary damages or contrition from the NFL. Good discussion here:
http://abovethelaw.com/2015/05/shou...d-roger-goodell-a-deflategate-email-exchange/
Even what constitutes intent might not be a simple dictionary definition of the word in the context of defamation (just speculating, don't know US laws concerning this).
"Intent" in some circumstances can include being wilfully blind to consequences of actions, or "wilfully courting the risk" (know there is potential harm in actions, but proceed anyway). Heck, I believe gross negligence in some circumstances can fall under "intent", but don't take any of this to the bank.
Edit: and I don't buy that because it's been difficult to prove in the past means it won't happen here. The facts are almost unprecedented, which could very well lead to a supposedly unprecedented result. Then you throw in the best lawyers money can buy. You might be reading about Brady v NFL for years to come in law school casebooks.