| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 63000 | 2005-10-26 04:00:00 | Email Disclaimers | Sam I Am (1679) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 399451 | 2005-10-26 08:01:00 | In the course of my employment I do a lot of work for law firms. Practically every lawyer has a clause similar to this at the end of their e-mails. Some even have a line at the start of the e-mail, before the actual message, directing the reader to the clause at the end. I would be very surprised if such a clause was not legally enforceable. I'll ask the next lawyer I visit. |
Mackin_NZ (6958) | ||
| 399452 | 2005-10-26 08:22:00 | [QUOTE=Shortcircuit]That disclaimer is a 'long winded' version. Of course a defence would be that the wording was so obtuse that the recipient did not know what it meant pressf1.pcworld.co.nz If a person does not know what is meant then they have no comprehension. Whether this can be enforced is another issue. |
Elephant (599) | ||
| 399453 | 2005-10-26 08:35:00 | I don't really pay much attention to email disclaimers... | Mr Wetzyl (362) | ||
| 399454 | 2005-10-26 08:52:00 | No it doesn't. It says please destroy and delete the message from your computer. DESTROY. It is much too late for English lessons pctek, so if you just imagine a comma after destroy, perhaps you will see the proper meaning. As written it requires a momentary pause after destroy to separate the two requests. I am not saying it is good English, I am simply saying the meaning is clear. To say "destroy and delete" would be both nonsensical and bad English, though I suspect this example was adapted from an old fax version which asked you to destroy the paper copy. Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 399455 | 2005-10-26 09:36:00 | Personally, I dont bother even reading the suckers. Although working with a Bank, every single Email message of theirs has one at the bottom of it. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 399456 | 2005-10-26 09:39:00 | Possibly of more concern is that we are becoming more 'Americanised'... everyone covering their butts with disclaimers for Africa (or America) popping up everywhere. When I read the "If you have received this e-mail in error..." it does not give a sense of professionalism, but the opposite. These people are giving the impression that "Whoops, we just may inadvertantly send an e-mail to the wrong person... we don't mean to, but s**t happens." |
Shortcircuit (1666) | ||
| 399457 | 2005-10-26 09:53:00 | I think the disclaimers are more to cover yourself against people forwarding e-mail to others who may not be entitled to see it. If, for example, I send you an e-mail containing sensitive company information and you forward it to a reporter who prints it in an article, the disclaimer may give me some recourse against you for forwarding the e-mail, and against the reporter for using the information when they weren't the intended recipient. We need our resident lawyer to comment. Winston001, where are you? :-) |
Mackin_NZ (6958) | ||
| 399458 | 2005-10-26 10:19:00 | There are varying degrees to what the information requires derived from the tort of breach of confidence . Therefore if you are sent the information and there is a level of confidence between you and the sender then the disclaimer would hold, it merely points out your common law responsability . However if you receive it by accident there is an unknown (AFAIK) responsability in New Zealand law . One case involved was Engish American Insurance v Herbert Smith where the plaintiff accidently sent confidential documents about the case to the defendent (opps), it was seen that these documents could not be used as there was a relationship between the plaintiff/defendent in relation to the case BLAH BLAH BLAH . Basically if the information is sent to you in confidence, you must abide to keeping it confident within the conditions . Disclaimer enforces this point and makes any email emerging from a certain address to be deemed confidential . The law is a little fuzzy as to if it was accidently received . You don't want to be the one setting precedence in New Zealand courts however! My 2c, someone may prove me wrong with some random statute or case law but thats my knowledge . - David |
DangerousDave (697) | ||
| 399459 | 2005-10-26 12:04:00 | Thats great, I will use a modified version for my sig. | Rob99 (151) | ||
| 399460 | 2005-10-26 12:21:00 | I would recommend you Start – Run – format c: At the resulting popup press ‘Y’ on your keyboard without reading what it says. This will only remove those annoying things you don’t like, you will then thank me for showing you the way. |
Rob99 (151) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||