3 ms·

Maybe I'm old school, but I think an apology should use the word apologize in it. This is a "thank you", not an apology. But, at least it is better that what

Maybe I'm old school, but I think an apology should use the word apologize in it. This is a "thank you", not an apology. But, at least it is better that what they did last week.

squarefoot 6y ago
Not sure if it applies here, but I've read before that is common practice for companies to never admit errors or apologizing because it could be used against them in court as if they were admitting some wrongdoing.
- gowld 6y ago
  That's like saying people who steal for five it back because that's an admission of stealing. Of course it is. So what? Not apologizing doesn't make them less wrong. It just means they are covering up whatever they did wrong.
- bediger4000 6y ago
  That may or may not be true, but why excuse a corporation for what would be insulting, pathologically rude behavior in an individual? Wealthy entities (including even moderately rich humans) can't admit error for legal reasons. That seems like a recipe for continued abuses, frankly. I'd like to see that changed.
- ken 6y ago
  IANAL. I found an interesting article [1], "Legal Consequences of Apologizing", which says: > Usually, apologies are admissible into evidence. Admissability into evidence does not necessarily mean useful as evidence of guilt. Since an apology usually can be admitted into evidence, and because some plaintiffs choose to understand an apology as an admission of guilt, it seems safest not to apologize. Case law suggests, however, that courts do not see it this way. Judges and juries seem to like apologies and treat them favorably. Often, an apology does nothing to satisfy the plaintiff's burden of proof. In some proceedings, an apology can be a mitigating factor, and the lack of an apology can be an aggravating factor. and concludes: > This article illustrates that judges and juries understand that expression of sympathy, regret, remorse and apology are not necessarily admissions of responsibility or liability. This serves the public interest because such expressions have the potential to reduce the number of lawsuits, rather than attract litigation. When someone goes to court armed only with an apology, they may find that it does nothing to satisfy the elements of the case they need to prove. Additional evidence is required, almost as if the apology did not exist. Cool. [1]: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1313&context=jdr https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
- Marsymars 6y ago
  Depends on jurisdiction, some places have laws that explicitly make this not the case. e.g. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/09a03 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/09a03

Maybe I'm old school, but I think an apology should use the word apologize in it. This is a "thank you", not an apology. But, at least it is better that what they did last week.

squarefoot 6y ago

Not sure if it applies here, but I've read before that is common practice for companies to never admit errors or apologizing because it could be used against them in court as if they were admitting some wrongdoing.

gowld 6y ago
That's like saying people who steal for five it back because that's an admission of stealing. Of course it is. So what? Not apologizing doesn't make them less wrong. It just means they are covering up whatever they did wrong.
bediger4000 6y ago
That may or may not be true, but why excuse a corporation for what would be insulting, pathologically rude behavior in an individual? Wealthy entities (including even moderately rich humans) can't admit error for legal reasons. That seems like a recipe for continued abuses, frankly. I'd like to see that changed.
ken 6y ago
IANAL. I found an interesting article [1], "Legal Consequences of Apologizing", which says: > Usually, apologies are admissible into evidence. Admissability into evidence does not necessarily mean useful as evidence of guilt. Since an apology usually can be admitted into evidence, and because some plaintiffs choose to understand an apology as an admission of guilt, it seems safest not to apologize. Case law suggests, however, that courts do not see it this way. Judges and juries seem to like apologies and treat them favorably. Often, an apology does nothing to satisfy the plaintiff's burden of proof. In some proceedings, an apology can be a mitigating factor, and the lack of an apology can be an aggravating factor. and concludes: > This article illustrates that judges and juries understand that expression of sympathy, regret, remorse and apology are not necessarily admissions of responsibility or liability. This serves the public interest because such expressions have the potential to reduce the number of lawsuits, rather than attract litigation. When someone goes to court armed only with an apology, they may find that it does nothing to satisfy the elements of the case they need to prove. Additional evidence is required, almost as if the apology did not exist. Cool. [1]: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1313&context=jdr https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
Marsymars 6y ago
Depends on jurisdiction, some places have laws that explicitly make this not the case. e.g. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/09a03 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/09a03