4 ms·

I like the idea, but I just don't see startups needing or using an email disclaimer. Plus they are pretty much worthless legal wise - http://www.economist.com/n

by duck 16y ago

I like the idea, but I just don't see startups needing or using an email disclaimer. Plus they are pretty much worthless legal wise - http://www.economist.com/node/18529895 http://www.economist.com/node/18529895.

x03 16y ago
Thanks...yeah, we appreciate that an email disclaimer isn't necessarily the most effective means legally, but they're still in such wide-spread use that they do carry a certain weight to them that a lot of people find re-assuring to have, hence their inclusion. We hope a lot more people will find the privacy policy, NDA and the coming terms of use more helpful...and we hope to have some other documents up soon, too...so, don't forget to bookmark it! :)
- sunchild 16y ago
  Sorry, but this is why those silly disclaimers continue to propagate. They are nothing but noise in most cases. An exception might be tax advice disclosures.
woodall 16y ago
The comments for that article are worth a read: Zouf wrote: While you are mostly correct, there is one good legal use of an email footer: to declare the data above it as confidential, and therefore comply with confidentiality agreements that protect only data that has been explicitly declared as confidential. I found this one particularly funny: stewsnooze wrote: Practice what you preach....... This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network... http://www.economist.com/comment/886653#comment-886653 http://www.economist.com/comment/886653#comment-886653 I wouldn't start leaving them out just yet.
- cschmidt 16y ago
  Well, they do mention in the article that they do it themselves.... > Many firms—The Economist included—automatically append these sorts of disclaimers to every message sent from their e-mail servers, no matter how brief and trivial the message itself might be.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
This isn't true. Email disclaimers can't unilaterally create a contract between the sender and receiver. This doesn't mean they are legally worthless. Two legally useful email disclaimers: "this is not legal advice" and "this is not an offer to buy or sell securities". These are both legally binding, because they merely remove potential ambiguity from an email and explicitly state the absence of a contract. Without the disclaimer, the text of an email might otherwise be interpreted to mean that a contract was present.
- chc 16y ago
  Really? If the email actually looks like an offer to buy or sell securities, I would imagine the disclaimer could be viewed as either mindless boilerplate with no genuine intent behind it or subterfuge. Like, I wouldn't imagine you could send an email along the lines of, "Hey, I'm looking to buy some securities. You in, bro? DISCLAIMER: This is not an offer to buy or sell securities."
  - jonnathanson 16y ago
    Everything gets tested at the extremes, but for the most part, email disclaimers are there as minor CYA measures for the sender of the email. Lawyers use them all the time, for instance, so that nobody misinterprets their daily chatter or off-the-cuff advice as constituting an official attorney-client relationship with the recipient. Obviously you can't hide behind an email disclaimer to C your A if your A is blatantly violating the letter or spirit of the disclaimer.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Your specific example doesn't read to me like subterfuge at all. It looks to me like an informal discussion which may lead to a purchase of securities. After you say "yes" via email, we will probably construct an actual contract specifying details. The disclaimer makes certain that both you and I realize this isn't an offer, just a conversation. You might get into trouble if you routinely engaged in securities transactions via email with such a disclaimer. But if you handle all actual trades with a legalistic form containing no disclaimer, and informal conversations in email with a disclaimer, the disclaimer is likely to hold up in court.

by duck 16y ago

x03 16y ago

Thanks...yeah, we appreciate that an email disclaimer isn't necessarily the most effective means legally, but they're still in such wide-spread use that they do carry a certain weight to them that a lot of people find re-assuring to have, hence their inclusion. We hope a lot more people will find the privacy policy, NDA and the coming terms of use more helpful...and we hope to have some other documents up soon, too...so, don't forget to bookmark it! :)

sunchild 16y ago
Sorry, but this is why those silly disclaimers continue to propagate. They are nothing but noise in most cases. An exception might be tax advice disclosures.

woodall 16y ago

The comments for that article are worth a read: Zouf wrote: While you are mostly correct, there is one good legal use of an email footer: to declare the data above it as confidential, and therefore comply with confidentiality agreements that protect only data that has been explicitly declared as confidential. I found this one particularly funny: stewsnooze wrote: Practice what you preach....... This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network... http://www.economist.com/comment/886653#comment-886653 http://www.economist.com/comment/886653#comment-886653 I wouldn't start leaving them out just yet.

cschmidt 16y ago
Well, they do mention in the article that they do it themselves.... > Many firms—The Economist included—automatically append these sorts of disclaimers to every message sent from their e-mail servers, no matter how brief and trivial the message itself might be.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

This isn't true. Email disclaimers can't unilaterally create a contract between the sender and receiver. This doesn't mean they are legally worthless. Two legally useful email disclaimers: "this is not legal advice" and "this is not an offer to buy or sell securities". These are both legally binding, because they merely remove potential ambiguity from an email and explicitly state the absence of a contract. Without the disclaimer, the text of an email might otherwise be interpreted to mean that a contract was present.

chc 16y ago
Really? If the email actually looks like an offer to buy or sell securities, I would imagine the disclaimer could be viewed as either mindless boilerplate with no genuine intent behind it or subterfuge. Like, I wouldn't imagine you could send an email along the lines of, "Hey, I'm looking to buy some securities. You in, bro? DISCLAIMER: This is not an offer to buy or sell securities."
- jonnathanson 16y ago
  Everything gets tested at the extremes, but for the most part, email disclaimers are there as minor CYA measures for the sender of the email. Lawyers use them all the time, for instance, so that nobody misinterprets their daily chatter or off-the-cuff advice as constituting an official attorney-client relationship with the recipient. Obviously you can't hide behind an email disclaimer to C your A if your A is blatantly violating the letter or spirit of the disclaimer.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Your specific example doesn't read to me like subterfuge at all. It looks to me like an informal discussion which may lead to a purchase of securities. After you say "yes" via email, we will probably construct an actual contract specifying details. The disclaimer makes certain that both you and I realize this isn't an offer, just a conversation. You might get into trouble if you routinely engaged in securities transactions via email with such a disclaimer. But if you handle all actual trades with a legalistic form containing no disclaimer, and informal conversations in email with a disclaimer, the disclaimer is likely to hold up in court.