adminIt is recalled that on September 17, Chioma Egodi published a product review on her Facebook page, stating that she had gone to get tin tomatoes the day before and couldn’t find her preferred choices, Gino and Sonia, and opted for Erisco. After opening and tasting it, she exclaimed, mentioning that there was too much sugar.
The review stirred reactions from the public, and the involvement of the Nigerian police heightened the situation.
Erisco’s spokesperson had maintained that Chioma had responded to a person under her review, stating that the person should talk to her brother to stop killing people.
The spokesperson also emphasized that whilst the company is well aware that customers have a right to send it their honest reviews about their products that the company also has the legal right to take action against any malicious attack on their reputation.
Under the Nigerian laws, the statements and actions of Erisco and Chioma have serious legal implications.
To put it straight, the statements and actions bothers around contractual/commercial rights, constitutional rights, and tortious liability.
Under the Sales of Goods Act, 1893, Section 14 of it holds that goods must be reasonably fit for their intended purpose. This position has been given juridical blessing in the case of Griffiths v. Peter Conway. This, then means that Erisco has an obligation to ensure its tomato paste is fit for what the public would generally want to use it for.
One may want to ask if Chioma could return the tomato paste? Section 36 of the Sales of Goods Act makes it clear that the buyer has the discretion to return or keep the goods; they are not bound to return them. Invariably, Chioma could have decided to return the goods.
Another may decide to ask if Chioma could as well call out the management of Erisco? Section 39(1), 1999, CFRN gives Chioma the legal right to express her opinions and ideas on any matters as the section provides that โevery person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without inference.โ
Going further, Subsection 2 gives Chioma the legal right to own, establish, and operate any medium for information dissemination and by extension the Facebook handle where she posted her review.
Examining tortious liability, Chioma’s statements fall into two categories: defamatory remarks (“stop killing people”) and injurious falsehood (excessive sugar).
Under the Nigerian law, Injurious falsehood protects a business’s reputation, particularly concerning product quality.
To establish Chioma’s liability for injurious falsehood, Erisco must prove the statement was damaging, false, published, and resulted in actual damage. All, must be proved without any being left out, else, Erisco would not have a case.
In the whole, only a competent court will decide Chiomaโs fate after examining the facts tabled by Erisco before it.
LEGALJOE, also known as JOSEPH ALIU, a Law Graduate, Human Rights Advocate, Constitutional Law Analyst, and Legal Series Analyst at @ogunwatchng, can be reached via aliujoseph085@gmail.com or 09131704196, 09085773212.
