Re: legal notices at the end of emails
> From: Ryan Coleman > Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:33:53 -0500 > Subject: Re: legal notices at the end of emails > > > -- > > Jerry > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they > > are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > transmission, please delete it immediately. > > > > Obviously, I am the idiot who sent it to you by mistake. Furthermore, > > there is no way I can force you to delete it. Worse, by the time you > > have reached this disclaimer you have all ready read the document. > > Telling you to forget it would seem absurd. In any event, I have no > > legal right to force you to take any action upon this email anyway. > > > > This entire disclaimer is just a waste of everyone's time and > > bandwidth. Therefore, let us just forget the whole thing and enjoy a > > cold beer instead. > > _ > > > Nice disclaimer. :) > > They have their place. Yup. That place is frequently referred to as "File 13". >CPAs, Bankers, mortgage, transferring of sensitive > data, etc. But they really mean nothing. :) To be 'legally binding' on the recipient, one must have _agreement_ on the terms from the recipient, _before_ the 'sensitive' material is sent to them. In _most_ jurisdictions in Western (at least!) jurisprudince, such embedeed 'disclaimers' are entirely _unenforceable_ against an 'unintended' recipient, being what is commonly known as a "contract of adhesion", and, as such, fail to satisfy one of the fundamental requirirements of a 'contract' -- i.e., a "meeting of the minds" between the parties to the contract. Such 'disclaimers' -- with the notable exception of ones similar to Jerry's, that is -- are nothing more than a (probably ineffective) CYA attempt by the originator's organization in the event of an actual erroneous disclosure of 'confidential' information. _IF_ such a 'notice' were an enforcable 'contract', consider what the effect of the following notice: By accepting this email, you agree to pay me US$5,000 within 10 days. And if you fail to tender said sum within the specified time-frame, authorize me to enter a 'confession of judgement' in your name, in a collection lawsuit. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: legal notices at the end of emails
Quoth Svein Skogen (Listmail account) on Wednesday, 27 July 2011: > > Those e-mail-footers of legalese-sounding mumbo-jumbo threatening > voodoo-action against you and anybody standing next to you, should you > not be the sole designated, implied or expressed, recipient of that > e-mail, are _LESS_ binding than "shrinkwrap EULAs", and has less actual > legal content than the gold-content of seawater. They add the footers to > sound important. It's a mild case of narcissism. > I think it's more of a CYA than narcissism -- but a poor one. Or it may be the equivalent of "please keep it to yourself" framed in legalese for added effect -- the 21st century version of pronouncing a curse upon the offender, and just as effective. -- .O. | Sterling (Chip) Camden | http://camdensoftware.com ..O | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | http://chipsquips.com OOO | 2048R/D6DBAF91 | http://chipstips.com pgpPbmPinTBSn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: legal notices at the end of emails
On Jul 27, 2011, at 6:30 AM, Jerry wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:08:04 +0200 > Svein Skogen (Listmail account) articulated: > >> On 27.07.2011 13:01, Damien Fleuriot wrote: >>> On 7/27/11 5:11 PM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: Ryan Coleman wrote: > A heads up about your footer: This email goes onto a mailing > list that is available via an online archive... your "terms" > are violated just by sending an email to this mailing list. Not necessarily. It says [emphasis added]: >> The contents of this eMail ... should not be disclosed >> to, ... anyone _other than the intended addressee(s)_ ... >> Any _unauthorized_ review ... is strictly prohibited ... I don't see a problem provided the archived mailing list is considered to be among "the intended addressee(s)" and the sender is considered, by the act of sending it to an archived list, to have authorized the archiving (and implicitly any subsequent use of the archive). >>> >>> All the same, any of you guys ever take this kind of notice >>> seriously ? I mean, really ? >>> >>> >>> See, you've actually read the e-mail prior to reading (and thus >>> accepting or refusing) the "legal" notice. >>> >>> It's like me sending you an e-mail, with a footer saying "By reading >>> this e-mail you hereby forfeit all of your fortune, properties and >>> claims in favor of Pwnd LTD, who shall be the sole and universal >>> beneficiary, and has just done you good.". >>> >>> Just because they appear in an e-mail and you've read that e-mail >>> doesn't mean you've acknowledged said terms, let alone accepted >>> them. >> >> Exactly. You did not solicit an agreement with the sender before the >> agreement appeared, and since it required no active part on your half, >> it is non-binding. >> >>> I for one, on principle, decline to abide by such terms, which may >>> in no case be enforced on me, seeing I never accepted them in the >>> first place. >> >> I think the reasoning is the legal principle of "whatever people think >> we can get away with, because we have a lawyer so slippery PTFT >> manufacturers are suing us for patent violations" >> >>> One would have to get my consent to abide by their legal notice THEN >>> send me the actual contents. >>> >>> Now, that would work. >>> Then again, on principle I would decline said terms so they couldn't >>> send me whatever they wanted... >> >> Those e-mail-footers of legalese-sounding mumbo-jumbo threatening >> voodoo-action against you and anybody standing next to you, should you >> not be the sole designated, implied or expressed, recipient of that >> e-mail, are _LESS_ binding than "shrinkwrap EULAs", and has less >> actual legal content than the gold-content of seawater. They add the >> footers to sound important. It's a mild case of narcissism. >> >> //Svein > > I find it rather amusing that anyone actually reads, far less pays any > attention to those useless pieces of garbage (disclaimers). Although I > do find it interesting that some pseudo Internet sheriff will condemn > the use of HTML mail in forums as wasted bandwidth yet stay mum on the > killing of defenseless electrons with the implementation of these > pointless disclaimers. > > -- > Jerry > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they > are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this > transmission, please delete it immediately. > > Obviously, I am the idiot who sent it to you by mistake. Furthermore, > there is no way I can force you to delete it. Worse, by the time you > have reached this disclaimer you have all ready read the document. > Telling you to forget it would seem absurd. In any event, I have no > legal right to force you to take any action upon this email anyway. > > This entire disclaimer is just a waste of everyone's time and > bandwidth. Therefore, let us just forget the whole thing and enjoy a > cold beer instead. > _ Nice disclaimer. :) They have their place. CPAs, Bankers, mortgage, transferring of sensitive data, etc. But they really mean nothing. :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: legal notices at the end of emails
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:08:04 +0200 Svein Skogen (Listmail account) articulated: > On 27.07.2011 13:01, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > On 7/27/11 5:11 PM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > >> Ryan Coleman wrote: > >> > >>> A heads up about your footer: This email goes onto a mailing > >>> list that is available via an online archive... your "terms" > >>> are violated just by sending an email to this mailing list. > >> > >> Not necessarily. It says [emphasis added]: > >> > The contents of this eMail ... should not be disclosed > to, ... anyone _other than the intended addressee(s)_ ... > Any _unauthorized_ review ... is strictly prohibited ... > >> > >> I don't see a problem provided the archived mailing list is > >> considered to be among "the intended addressee(s)" and the > >> sender is considered, by the act of sending it to an archived > >> list, to have authorized the archiving (and implicitly any > >> subsequent use of the archive). > >> > > > > All the same, any of you guys ever take this kind of notice > > seriously ? I mean, really ? > > > > > > See, you've actually read the e-mail prior to reading (and thus > > accepting or refusing) the "legal" notice. > > > > It's like me sending you an e-mail, with a footer saying "By reading > > this e-mail you hereby forfeit all of your fortune, properties and > > claims in favor of Pwnd LTD, who shall be the sole and universal > > beneficiary, and has just done you good.". > > > > Just because they appear in an e-mail and you've read that e-mail > > doesn't mean you've acknowledged said terms, let alone accepted > > them. > > Exactly. You did not solicit an agreement with the sender before the > agreement appeared, and since it required no active part on your half, > it is non-binding. > > > I for one, on principle, decline to abide by such terms, which may > > in no case be enforced on me, seeing I never accepted them in the > > first place. > > I think the reasoning is the legal principle of "whatever people think > we can get away with, because we have a lawyer so slippery PTFT > manufacturers are suing us for patent violations" > > > One would have to get my consent to abide by their legal notice THEN > > send me the actual contents. > > > > Now, that would work. > > Then again, on principle I would decline said terms so they couldn't > > send me whatever they wanted... > > Those e-mail-footers of legalese-sounding mumbo-jumbo threatening > voodoo-action against you and anybody standing next to you, should you > not be the sole designated, implied or expressed, recipient of that > e-mail, are _LESS_ binding than "shrinkwrap EULAs", and has less > actual legal content than the gold-content of seawater. They add the > footers to sound important. It's a mild case of narcissism. > > //Svein I find it rather amusing that anyone actually reads, far less pays any attention to those useless pieces of garbage (disclaimers). Although I do find it interesting that some pseudo Internet sheriff will condemn the use of HTML mail in forums as wasted bandwidth yet stay mum on the killing of defenseless electrons with the implementation of these pointless disclaimers. -- Jerry This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please delete it immediately. Obviously, I am the idiot who sent it to you by mistake. Furthermore, there is no way I can force you to delete it. Worse, by the time you have reached this disclaimer you have all ready read the document. Telling you to forget it would seem absurd. In any event, I have no legal right to force you to take any action upon this email anyway. This entire disclaimer is just a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth. Therefore, let us just forget the whole thing and enjoy a cold beer instead. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: legal notices at the end of emails
On 27.07.2011 13:01, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > On 7/27/11 5:11 PM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: >> Ryan Coleman wrote: >> >>> A heads up about your footer: This email goes onto a mailing >>> list that is available via an online archive... your "terms" >>> are violated just by sending an email to this mailing list. >> >> Not necessarily. It says [emphasis added]: >> The contents of this eMail ... should not be disclosed to, ... anyone _other than the intended addressee(s)_ ... Any _unauthorized_ review ... is strictly prohibited ... >> >> I don't see a problem provided the archived mailing list is >> considered to be among "the intended addressee(s)" and the >> sender is considered, by the act of sending it to an archived >> list, to have authorized the archiving (and implicitly any >> subsequent use of the archive). >> > > All the same, any of you guys ever take this kind of notice seriously ? > I mean, really ? > > > See, you've actually read the e-mail prior to reading (and thus > accepting or refusing) the "legal" notice. > > It's like me sending you an e-mail, with a footer saying "By reading > this e-mail you hereby forfeit all of your fortune, properties and > claims in favor of Pwnd LTD, who shall be the sole and universal > beneficiary, and has just done you good.". > > Just because they appear in an e-mail and you've read that e-mail > doesn't mean you've acknowledged said terms, let alone accepted them. Exactly. You did not solicit an agreement with the sender before the agreement appeared, and since it required no active part on your half, it is non-binding. > I for one, on principle, decline to abide by such terms, which may in no > case be enforced on me, seeing I never accepted them in the first place. I think the reasoning is the legal principle of "whatever people think we can get away with, because we have a lawyer so slippery PTFT manufacturers are suing us for patent violations" > One would have to get my consent to abide by their legal notice THEN > send me the actual contents. > > Now, that would work. > Then again, on principle I would decline said terms so they couldn't > send me whatever they wanted... Those e-mail-footers of legalese-sounding mumbo-jumbo threatening voodoo-action against you and anybody standing next to you, should you not be the sole designated, implied or expressed, recipient of that e-mail, are _LESS_ binding than "shrinkwrap EULAs", and has less actual legal content than the gold-content of seawater. They add the footers to sound important. It's a mild case of narcissism. //Svein -- +---+--- /"\ |Svein Skogen | sv...@d80.iso100.no \ / |Solberg Østli 9| PGP Key: 0xE5E76831 X|2020 Skedsmokorset | sv...@jernhuset.no / \ |Norway | PGP Key: 0xCE96CE13 | | sv...@stillbilde.net ascii | | PGP Key: 0x58CD33B6 ribbon |System Admin | svein-listm...@stillbilde.net Campaign|stillbilde.net | PGP Key: 0x22D494A4 +---+--- |msn messenger: | Mobile Phone: +47 907 03 575 |sv...@jernhuset.no | RIPE handle:SS16503-RIPE +---+--- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? Picture Gallery: https://gallery.stillbilde.net/v/svein/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
