Legal Meaning of Liargeorge
A liar is someone who does not tell the truth. A liar is lying. Legal analysis is also context-based. A lie while trying to sell your home is more likely to lead to a lawsuit than a lie told over a drink in a bar. These are obvious examples, but there are many situations in between where the line is not so easy to spot. Before the 12th century, „fraud“ and „liar“ in the sense defined above were both ugly nouns, but only one will take you to the side of defending a civil lawsuit. It has been claimed that non-deceitful liars do not intend to communicate something believer-false with their false statements, but even intend to communicate something believer-true with their false statements (Dynel 2011, 151). Fallis rejects the claim that non-deceitful liars do not intend to communicate something believer-false, even if they intend to communicate something believer-true: In general, anything that is not a white lie (how beautiful your spouse is) should be avoided. Remember that a lie carries the risk of becoming a scam if you expect the listener to react to the lie. Staying honest isn`t just good personal policy.
It is also a sensible legal strategy. In the case of polite lies such as „Madam is not home,“ however, the false statement is simply a euphemism: „For example, the words `She is not home` recited by a servant or relative at the door have become a mere euphemism for discomfort or aversion“ (Isenberg 1973, 256). In case of polite lies, it seems that there is no intention to communicate something that is believed – false. In the case of the servant who says to the caller, „I dust off the piano keys,“ or the Iraqi doctor who says to the journalist, „I don`t see uniforms,“ or the negotiator who says to the other negotiator, „This is the highest thing I can walk,“ or the person who lives in the totalitarian state and makes the pro-state statement, It can also be argued that there is no intention to communicate something that one believes – false. If this is true, then there is some support for the claim that non-deceptive liars do not intend to communicate anything false with their false statements, and therefore do not lie according to L15 or L16. It is possible for a person to make a statement using American Sign Language, smoke signals, Morse code, semaphore flags, etc., as well as certain physical gestures whose meaning has been determined by convention (for example, nodding in response to a question). Therefore, it is possible to lie in this way. If it is accepted that a person does not make a statement, when wearing a wig, giving a fake smile, limping, etc., it follows that a person cannot lie by doing these things (Siegler 1966, 128). If a person does not make a statement, for example, if they wear a wedding ring if they are not married, or wear a police uniform if they are not a police officer, it follows that they cannot lie by doing these things. In the case of an ironic and false statement by a speaker, the speaker does not suggest that the believer-false statement (e.g., „Brutus is an honorable man“) become common ground (Stokke 2013a, 50). In the case of a non-deceptive liar, however, the speaker suggests that the believer-false statement (e.g., „I did not cheat“) become common ground (Stokke 2013a, 52).
The fact that, in the case of a non-misleading lie, it is common knowledge that what the speaker says is false (supposed) does not change the fact that the speaker suggests that the alleged lie becomes common ground. In fact, even if truth (raw) is initially common ground before the speaker suggests that the alleged lie becomes a common basis, it is still true that the non-deceptive liar proposes to „uncover the common ground with his statement“ (Stokke 2013a, 54). For example, in the case of the student and the dean: „The student wants her and the dean to accept each other that she has not plagiarized“ (Stokke 2013a, 54). Correction: This post previously incorrectly stated that the question of materiality is left to the judges and not the jury. While materiality was a legal issue for the court at one point, it has been a subject for the jury since the 1995 Supreme Court decision against Gaudin in the United States. Arguably, Stokke`s claim report, and therefore L17, faces a dilemma when it comes to non-misleading lies. Either in the case of a non-misleading lie, the speaker suggests that the believer-false phrase becomes a common basis, but becoming a common ground is too weak to be considered an assertion, or becoming common ground is strong enough to be considered a statement, but in the case of a non-misleading lie, the speaker does not suggest, that the believer-false statement becomes a common basis.