context: In support of its slander per se claim, Plaintiff alleges that Hall "has stated and continues to state to Agilysys's existing customers and prospective customers that Agilysys is no longer in the business of selling IBM hardware or IBM solutions for such hardware." Am. Compl. at P 198. Plaintiff also alleges that "Hall has made false statements to Agilysys's customers and prospective customers regarding Agi-lysys's capacity to meet customer needs with respect to iSeries and IBM hardware and- solutions."
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 2011 WL 4103576, at *30
citation_a.parenthetical: statements that the plaintiff was out of business did not constitute slander per se because they did not imply any dishonest or discreditable conduct on the Plaintiffs part
citation_a.sentence: Bellemead, LLC, 280 Ga. at 639, 631 S.E.2d 693 (finding no slander per se where the defendant allegedly said that the plaintiff would not be selling lots much longer because the plaintiff was leaving the area and suggesting that the buyer should buy lots from the defendant instead); see B & F Sys., Inc. v. LeBlanc, No. 7:07-CV-192 HL, 2011 WL 4103576, at *30 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 14, 2011) (statements that the plaintiff was out of business did not constitute slander per se because they did not imply any dishonest or discreditable conduct on the Plaintiffs part).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.parenthetical: finding no slander per se where the defendant allegedly said that the plaintiff would not be selling lots much longer because the plaintiff was leaving the area and suggesting that the buyer should buy lots from the defendant instead
citation_b.sentence: Bellemead, LLC, 280 Ga. at 639, 631 S.E.2d 693 (finding no slander per se where the defendant allegedly said that the plaintiff would not be selling lots much longer because the plaintiff was leaving the area and suggesting that the buyer should buy lots from the defendant instead); see B & F Sys., Inc. v. LeBlanc, No. 7:07-CV-192 HL, 2011 WL 4103576, at *30 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 14, 2011) (statements that the plaintiff was out of business did not constitute slander per se because they did not imply any dishonest or discreditable conduct on the Plaintiffs part).