We will get rid of unnecessary bla-bla-bla in emails

Automatic notes in emails are annoying, and there is no use to them in legal terms.

"If you received this email by mistake, immediately notify the sender and delete the message from your computer." "Any recommendations in the field of taxation contained in this message are not intended to be used for the purpose of evading fines in accordance with tax legislation." Many companies automatically add such disclaimers ( disclaimers, disclaimers ) to each email sent from their mail server, no matter how brief and insignificant the message content.


The email disclaimer is one of the least annoying attributes of modern office life, along with a training fire alarm, annual certification and loudly sneezing colleagues. But it is worth to think about the waste of paper when printing such letters!

It is implied that such statements are a reasonable precaution. But by and large, from a legal point of view, they are meaningless and ineffective. Lawyers and experts in the field of Internet policy claim that even in the United States, where the parties most often and actively defend their rights in court, have not used a presence or absence of a disclaimer at the end of an e-mail in any proceedings.
')
Many disclaimers, in fact, are trying to unilaterally impose contractual obligations on the other side, and that is why they are probably not legally binding. In Europe, the answer to this question is clear and unambiguous. The directive adopted by the European Commission prohibits the courts from recognizing as valid any unfounded contractual obligations imposed on the consumer, if the latter does not openly accept them. And a statement of limitation of liability such as “the information specified in this letter should not be used to violate the law” will not help that lawyer or financial adviser whose letter contained illegal recommendations.

Then why are disclaimers still running? Corporate lawyers often insist on their application because others use them. Just as in the case of the use of Latin terminology and the wearing of the judicial mantle - what once became a legal habit, tends to "stick" for a long time. Maybe disclaimers even remind people of prudent behavior? Michael Averly, a lawyer from Los Angeles, does not think so: the widespread use of predictable tra-la-la at the end of electronic communications means that people have long ceased to pay attention to this.

Disclaimer. Translator is not responsible for the content of this post, as well as for its interest to the reader. If you are reading this post by mistake, close the window of your browser, delete cookies, having previously shared a link with someone who may be interested in this topic.

Source: www.economist.com/node/18529895