John Andersen wrote:

That is my understanding as well, and the inclusion of such is a matter of derision among knowledgeable lawyers, and the sign of a totally and among communist spies?

It is the opinion of my friendly district attorney (to whom I've mentioned this issue in the past) that putting this on the bottom of an email is like stamping it on papers you leave laying around in the street, and expecting it to have any effect. I like the analogy. My company's legal department also said that it is meaningless and asked people here to stop doing that but it is amazing how many people here actually believed that the disclaimer was a good thing to do.

Damon Register

A proposal is not binding unless accepted by both parties. Obviously a disclaimer at the bottom of an e-mail would have no legal effect, because, as correctly pointed out, the substance of the email would have been disclosed prior to the reader becoming aware of any included disclaimer. It would be as enforceable as me including a disclaimer at the bottom that says: "Disclaimer: For and in consideration for the foregoing legal advise, and that which follows, each reader is hereby bound and hereby agrees to forward to the undersigned within three business days the reasonable fee of $10,000,000.00 in U.S. dollars for the dimwitted, nonsensical, but very valuable legal advise contained herein." However, think about the way some of the software licensing agreements are done. In the case where the installer (on windows) displays a dialog and a licensing agreement and requires the user to "Agree" to be bound by its terms and conditions "Before" installing the software, then the company is in a much better position to enforce the licensing agreement due to the option the user is provided to either agree or not agree to the licensing conditions. (of course that doesn't get around the argument that "Hey, I didn't install it, my ten year old must have installed it on my machine.....") But, as long as you have enjoyed the discussion, you can go ahead and forward the $10,000,000.00 as set forth above being bound by virtue of reading "that which follows" after being presented with the disclaimer above ;-) -- David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 (936) 715-9333 www.rankinlawfirm.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Zitnik" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:19 AM Subject: Re: [SLE] [OT] legalese and toilet paper (was: permanent smbmounts

This is what I was told about such disclaimers. You were sent the e-mail, and by mistake or not, it had your name in the recipients address. You read the entire e-mail, and then AFTER you have read the contents, the disclaimer puts all of these rules in. With almost any contract, both sides would have to agree to be binding. They can not unilaterally enforce conditions that you never agreed to. I think the intent is to scare people in to deleting by putting enough fear in that they just "feel better" getting rid of it.

...

...

...

On 9/25/2006 at 4:14 PM, wrote: Tim Nicholson [mailto:tim.nicholson@bbc.co.uk] 's outgoing mail system said:

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.

I realize that most of us aren't lawyers, but we do have lots of widely knowledgeable people on the list, so... Is anybody aware of any jurisdiction where the above nonsense, or the similar nonsense that will be glued to the bottom of my post, against my better judgement, carries any real weight or obligation?

I'm convinced (until shown the error of my ways... which I don't expect any time soon) that it's just a lame excuse to torture and embarrass a few unwary electrons.

And by the way, BBC, I don't consent. So there.

:->

Kevin

The information contained in this electronic mail transmission may be

...

privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer without copying or disclosing it.

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/456 - Release Date: 9/25/06

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/456 - Release Date: 9/25/06

James Hatridge wrote:

On Tuesday 26 September 2006 16:08, David Rankin wrote:

...

But, as long as you have enjoyed the discussion, you can go ahead and forward the $10,000,000.00 as set forth above being bound by virtue of reading "that which follows" after being presented with the disclaimer above ;-)

Can you break a $20,000,000.00 bill?

Do you mind pennies? ;-)