Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): stake.” Lawrence, 357 Mich. at 137-38, 97 N.W.2d at 721. Similarly, the Bacon court, in emphasizing the public policy grounding for the privilege, recognized that the privilege does not exist for the personal benefit of the defendant, but serves to abrogate the rights of the plaintiff only where silence could lead to public harm. Inherent in the balancing of private and public interests is the idea that the alleged defamatory communications be made with the intent of advancing the public interest. Courts have used the term “good faith” to describe the statement-maker’s proper motive. Because the privilege rests on a foundation of public policy, only communications made in good faith, with the legitimate purpose of advancing that policy, are properly entitled to d 83, 85 (6th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). And in Mid-America Food Service, Inc. v. ARA 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion (B) holding in a case where a store manager announced to disgruntled employees that the plaintiff a coworker was fired for gambling that in calling in fellow employees of plaintiff and explaining the circumstances of his separation defendant corporation was serving its own particular interest no privilege extended to the communication to them and the trial court properly so held (C) holding employee has cause of action for retaliatory discharge in contravention of public policy where employee was fired for reporting fellow employees alleged criminal activities to local law enforcement (D) holding defendant failed to rebut statutory presumption where evidence was not particular to the facts and circumstances of the case (E) holding that a defendant owed no duty to a plaintiff with regard to the safekeeping of evidence because there was no promise by the defendant or its employees to inspect or safeguard the evidence for the plaintiffs benefit and destruction of physical evidence was not criminal because destruction was innocent and designed to ensure the safety of the defendants employees
Output (English): holding that a defendant owed no duty to a plaintiff with regard to the safekeeping of evidence because there was no promise by the defendant or its employees to inspect or safeguard the evidence for the plaintiffs benefit and destruction of physical evidence was not criminal because destruction was innocent and designed to ensure the safety of the defendants employees