Chapter 5 distinguishes three subtypes of inferential processes that go beyond the literal meanings of words and constructions, each of which has resulted in disputed meanings in lawsuits. The first involves inferences arising from information given in the immediate context. One dispute in a libel suit centered on whether there was a chain of reasoning in a tabloid magazine article that would lead readers unmistakably to the implicature that the plaintiff was being used for sex by a Hollywood celebrity. Another libel suit involved the alleged implication of racial profiling in a political campaign mailer. And the focus in another was on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and whether a speaker at a public forum did, or did not, “imply” that a particular named company was acting illegally and had violated it. The second type of inference arises from “the presumption of truth,” whereby sentences are normally understood to be making a claim the speaker believes to be true, unless this is explicitly qualified by a disclaimer. This was at the basis of a libel suit in which a tabloid magazine was accused of presenting a new theory of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination in a way that was claimed to “imply” that the magazine endorsed it, so incriminating one of the individuals involved. The third type of inference arises from real-world knowledge and is commonly evoked for suggestive terms in trademark law. ROACH MOTEL is given as an illustration, and a detailed analysis is then provided for PERSONAL POST OFFICE, arguing that it is also suggestive.