9 ms·
Hope the NDA they referred to didn't have a clause about "not acknowledging the existence of the NDA" that many do. :D
by yakkomajuri 5y ago
Hope the NDA they referred to didn't have a clause about "not acknowledging the existence of the NDA" that many do. :D
- mike_d 5y agoI believe you are thinking of a NSL (National Security Letter). I've never seen an NDA that compelled secrecy regarding the agreement itself.
- jefftk 5y agoIt is definitely a thing, and I may or may not have signed one
- handrous 5y agoMaybe it's to guard against the possibility of revealing what's covered by an NDA by answering yes or no to increasingly-detailed questions about what is and isn't covered by the NDA?
- mike_d 5y agoSorry I should have been more explicit. I've seen all sorts of dumb shit in NDAs. What I meant to say was I've never seen that kind of language in an NDA drafted by a decent lawyer that expected it to be enforceable. Competent legal council would have the whole thing invalidated because you cannot mount a legal defense to a document you can't acknowledge the existence of in open court. Judges only let that stuff fly when you risk human life or judicial process, not in civil cases.