Section 41-1-6-9 of the State statutes defines defamation as the intentional publication of a false statement about a person.That statute defines publication as communication to a third person.

In support of the position tom defamed Allen

Defamation is intentional publication of a false statement about a second person to a third person. In this case Tom has intentionally publicized Allen in that, tom never instructed Allen's friend to open the letter. We cant base our judgement based on the idea of him sealing the letter as an act of asking him not to read it. It should either have been verbal or written instruction to his friend to ensure secrecy of the letter content.

A counterargument of part A

Having in mind that defamation has the term intentional publication in it, I can say that it is not clear if the intention of Tom was to publicize Allen. Like an act of trying to practice secrecy and discreteness of the letter he tried to seal the letter with tape. To show that Allen's friend was not to open the letter. From another view point one can say that just the same way as he gave the instruction for delivery of the letter. He as supposed to tell him not to open the letter. Defamation therefore is not the right judgement on Tom for there is no clear act of intentional publication, but a third party got involved as a result of no proper instruction to him despite the importance of the letter content. I would call that gross negligence other than defamation, for despite knowing the heaviness lf the letter content he was to be as discrete as possible in matters of handling it from him to the intended recipient. Therefore defamation is not the charge. In another view point Tom has no charges on him for Allen's friend intruded in matters he was not supposed to. The instructions was to deliver the letter but not to open and read the content of the letter.