I get these all the time at the end of legit emails, from otherwise serious folks. How much does this really protect a person???? Any minuses???
Email "legal" statements...
- Thread starter Pablo
- Start date
- Status
i think its bunk intended to scare harmless people.
The company I used to work for had a similar disclaimer. it wasn't to scare anyone, more like to attempt to cover their butt from inadvertently sending something to the wrong person. I have always wondered how much protection it actually provides. it also provides a uniform signiture for everyone's email. otherwise people would make up all sorts of different messages trying to say the same thing.
We used to have scripted voice mail greetings also. even though most of the message didn't apply to me it was a uniform message for everyone to use.
We used to have scripted voice mail greetings also. even though most of the message didn't apply to me it was a uniform message for everyone to use.
My company automatically tacks a similar legal warning to the end of all e-mail that leaves the company's network. I'm sure that's what you're seeing, Pablo. It's just a CYA measure on the part of the legal department so they have a means to sue people if anyone accidentally spills any trade secrets and the info gets into the wrong hands. I doubt these warnings are worth the electrons they're printed on.
OT:I've always wondered about the "Not responsible for damage done your vehicle" signs in parking garages/lots.
AFAIK, you cannot state lack of responsibility and have it legally be binding; I'm sure damage done to private property ON private property that is open to the public has a myriad of nuances from a legal view; I suspect this is there to say "if SOMEONE else hits your car" don't sue us. But if say (like a previous thread) there is a parking lot full of unrestrained carriages and no apparent place to store them, and no employee tries to collect them and one rolls into your car, well....
I don't believe I can plant a front yard of landmines, place a sign that says "Not responsible for yapper dogs blown to bits by my landmines" and escape some sort of scrutiny.
AFAIK, you cannot state lack of responsibility and have it legally be binding; I'm sure damage done to private property ON private property that is open to the public has a myriad of nuances from a legal view; I suspect this is there to say "if SOMEONE else hits your car" don't sue us. But if say (like a previous thread) there is a parking lot full of unrestrained carriages and no apparent place to store them, and no employee tries to collect them and one rolls into your car, well....
I don't believe I can plant a front yard of landmines, place a sign that says "Not responsible for yapper dogs blown to bits by my landmines" and escape some sort of scrutiny.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
It depends. For example, in EU countries, the owners of websites assume automatically responsibility for the content of all websites to which they provide links on their own site. That's why you will see on all websites owned by Euros, you will find a disclaimer on the main page, in which the website owner distances himself from all content of websites that they have linked.
Not sure about the email privacy notice, but I get it frequently in emails from US-based senders and even more often from Euro-based senders.
Last edited:
simple gifts, that's been tested down here in courts.
Provided the "contract" is displayed, either at the point where you recieve your entry ticket, or on every pedestrian exit (and also provided that if you don't agree with the "contract", you have a grace period to remove your car with no charge)...then you have a greed to the "contract" that they are not responsible for your car.
It's a bit different to your landmine scenario.
Provided the "contract" is displayed, either at the point where you recieve your entry ticket, or on every pedestrian exit (and also provided that if you don't agree with the "contract", you have a grace period to remove your car with no charge)...then you have a greed to the "contract" that they are not responsible for your car.
It's a bit different to your landmine scenario.
JHZR2
Staff member
Seems odd to me that the mere reciept of an email, which the recipient cannot help but have show up in their inbox, can be forced into a contract or acceptance of the responsibility or ability of the sender's entity to sue by virtue of reciept.
If this was sent and an acceptance had to be clicked, this would be one thing... then people would have to make a conscious decision to accept and read an email before they could see it, and doing this, if the email was an error, would constitute an agreement not to misuse the information, makes sense. To have this tacked on the bottom, and state that in case of an error, the recipient must be responsible for use and treatment of the data, without at least monetary provision for exercise of this forced responsibility, is ridiculous.
Unfortunately the Lawyer's monopoly makes it too tough to fight for your freedom given someone's irresponsibility, and thus we are stuck as sheep to clean up someone's misktake, and we are forced to give charity to corporations, without our permission.
JMH
If this was sent and an acceptance had to be clicked, this would be one thing... then people would have to make a conscious decision to accept and read an email before they could see it, and doing this, if the email was an error, would constitute an agreement not to misuse the information, makes sense. To have this tacked on the bottom, and state that in case of an error, the recipient must be responsible for use and treatment of the data, without at least monetary provision for exercise of this forced responsibility, is ridiculous.
Unfortunately the Lawyer's monopoly makes it too tough to fight for your freedom given someone's irresponsibility, and thus we are stuck as sheep to clean up someone's misktake, and we are forced to give charity to corporations, without our permission.
JMH
Sure would be entertaineng for a while, though!!!!!
Bob
- Status
