On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, kevin lyda wrote:
> sites like this make me question my opposition to capital
> punishment.
:)
> "This month's Q&A: Is it better to prepend or append disclaimer
> statements?"  augh!  and they admit they're pointless - in reality
> they're just the legal world's version of mandatory email fashion
> accessories.
not legal, more management/corporate fashion. cause most of the
actual /legal/ opinion on the web i've found on the web indicates:
1. they should be used /sparingly/
blanket pre/appending of disclaimers /dilutes/ any legal
effectiveness they have.
2. they are not binding, and have little meaning other than in
certain situations.
they are not binding.
though there are some situations where for proffessional reasons one
may wish to indicate the standing of an email. (eg legal advice "this
is / is not legal advice" type of thing. But again, this means
disclaimers need to context-specific. (see 1.)
3. there is precedence that blanket disclaimers, under UK law, have
no standing and that rather (common sense this) it is the context of
the situation that determines the legal effects of an email.
See the norwich union case.
Anyway, my top tips to help superiors who've fallen for disclaimers
to see sense:
1. server side appends breaks email standards. (unless always done
correctly - nearly impossible, cause then server has to understand
every possible type of client encoding).
1a. it /does/ break certain types of encryption, that depend on the
body being untouched. (eg X.509? kate brought this up ages ago).
1b. iirc, it contravenes MIME to pre/append non mime-typed text. Most
mailers will work around this and display the mail 'correctly', some
might not though. Eg the message might not be displayed, or the
disclaimer might not be displayed.
1c. the correct place for disclaimers is on the client side. this
also allows the user to select appropriate disclaimer for appropriate
context (or no disclaimer at all).
2. blanket appended disclaimers are of dubious legal effectiveness.
(dilution, NU case in UK)
3. generic disclaimer text is of dubious legal effectiveness. indeed
it will often be completely inappropriate ('this message is
confidential' on list mail). see 1c. Also, it needs to be written by
an actual lawyer.
4. A lot of big multinational corporations do /not/ append
disclaimers. (ones i know of: Compaq (deceased), Motorol (iirc),
Microsoft (iirc)).
Useful link:
http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
(and see links at bottom of this page).
finally, if you cant get reason to prevail and you have to agree to
implementing server side disclaimers, you can still resort to:
"that'll be done just as soon as the company stationary has
disclaimers printed on them. oh, and i guess we'll have to play a
disclaimer before or after all our telephone calls too?
Wait, that would cause a problem for faxes wouldnt it?"
> kevin
Disclaimer: IANAL, all the above might be wrong, i might even be
intentionally misleading you. who knows.. go check it out for
yourself.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
Fortune:
A real patriot is the fellow who gets a parking ticket and rejoices
that the system works.
--
Irish Linux Users' Group Social Events: social@linux.ie
http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/social for (un)subscription information.
List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie