4 ms·

How enforceable is this? I like the idea and I remember reading something (possibly written by pg) about binding text messages, but if I wanted to actually use

by ntumlin 13y ago

How enforceable is this? I like the idea and I remember reading something (possibly written by pg) about binding text messages, but if I wanted to actually use this how would I convince someone intent on me signing an NDA. I hope I'm not over-analyzing something potentially made in jest, but I'm fascinated on what it takes to make your word legally binding.

patio11 13y ago
I think the point is to communicate "I would prefer an agreement enforced by social norms to one enforced by legal norms here." This is similar to my all-purpose dodge: "My professional discretion is free. If you want a formal contract I will be happy to execute it along with my formal invoice."
- mjhea0 13y ago
  yes. something of that nature.
- andrewfong 13y ago
  It's not a very good dodge. Signing anything, even something done in jest, creates more risk than if you hadn't.
  - scott_s 13y ago
    If you're also sending an invoice, I don't think it counts as "in jest."
- stan_rogers 13y ago
  The problem being that the parties to a pinky swear are released from their obligations under that agreement in the presence of a double-dog dare. There is a reason why there are legal norms.
gojomo 13y ago
IANAL, but standing alone, with no exchange of 'consideration', and only signed/stated by one party, it likely doesn't create much of a legal obligation. Combined with other communication - perhaps as one of a pair of 'pinky-swears', each stating one party's offering in return for the others' - it might contribute part of a larger commitment. After all, a contract doesn't have to be written - it's just wise to do so for the sake of clarity. The exercise of writing down a mutual understanding, even if it's not a legally strong contract, can still be useful in reducing the risk of misunderstandings.
- dctoedt 13y ago
  > IANAL, but standing alone, with no exchange of 'consideration', and only signed/stated by one party, it likely doesn't create much of a legal obligation. That's not always the case. For example: "The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents one party from withdrawing a promise made to a second party if the latter has reasonably relied on that promise." (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel.)

by ntumlin 13y ago

patio11 13y ago

I think the point is to communicate "I would prefer an agreement enforced by social norms to one enforced by legal norms here." This is similar to my all-purpose dodge: "My professional discretion is free. If you want a formal contract I will be happy to execute it along with my formal invoice."

mjhea0 13y ago
yes. something of that nature.
andrewfong 13y ago
It's not a very good dodge. Signing anything, even something done in jest, creates more risk than if you hadn't.
- scott_s 13y ago
  If you're also sending an invoice, I don't think it counts as "in jest."
stan_rogers 13y ago
The problem being that the parties to a pinky swear are released from their obligations under that agreement in the presence of a double-dog dare. There is a reason why there are legal norms.

gojomo 13y ago

IANAL, but standing alone, with no exchange of 'consideration', and only signed/stated by one party, it likely doesn't create much of a legal obligation. Combined with other communication - perhaps as one of a pair of 'pinky-swears', each stating one party's offering in return for the others' - it might contribute part of a larger commitment. After all, a contract doesn't have to be written - it's just wise to do so for the sake of clarity. The exercise of writing down a mutual understanding, even if it's not a legally strong contract, can still be useful in reducing the risk of misunderstandings.

dctoedt 13y ago
> IANAL, but standing alone, with no exchange of 'consideration', and only signed/stated by one party, it likely doesn't create much of a legal obligation. That's not always the case. For example: "The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents one party from withdrawing a promise made to a second party if the latter has reasonably relied on that promise." (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel.)