3 ms·

If all we're saying is it doesn't pass the "reasonable person" test, then it's not obviously illegal. Some may feel it is reasonable to communicate the terms of

If all we're saying is it doesn't pass the "reasonable person" test, then it's not obviously illegal. Some may feel it is reasonable to communicate the terms of the non-disparagement clause you've signed to the members of your party and that it is reasonable to expect the party's sponsor to pay a fine if the members fail to adhere to the rules. I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm missing something obvious. I would just like some substantiation. It seems that many people have the habit of automatically declaring something they don't like to "must be illegal" simply because they strongly dislike it. That's now how law works, and that's important to understand because many people seriously underestimate the powers that the legislature holds.

JadeNB 12y ago
> If all we're saying is it doesn't pass the "reasonable person" test, then it's not obviously illegal. Some may feel it is reasonable to communicate the terms of the non-disparagement clause you've signed to the members of your party and that it is reasonable to expect the party's sponsor to pay a fine if the members fail to adhere to the rules. I didn't claim that it was (il)legal or (un)reasonable, only that I wasn't convinced that language of this sort (where you are being held responsible for the actions of people when they are not under your immediate control) was common in contracts.