From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 19 07:30:26 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C8F16A412 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:30:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.web-strider.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1CF713C45E for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:30:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from coolf89ea26645 (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id l0J7UOx46704; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:30:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Message-ID: <013901c73b9b$8b074e70$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645> From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Jay Chandler" , "freebsd-questions" References: <04E232FDCD9FBE43857F7066CAD3C0F126733D@svmailmel.bytecraft.internal> <45B01FEC.1030008@chapman.edu> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:29:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 Cc: Subject: Re: Mail etiquette (was: What is this mean by this term) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:30:26 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Chandler" To: "freebsd-questions" Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:33 PM Subject: Re: Mail etiquette (was: What is this mean by this term) > > > > > > Have any of these disclaimers ever proven to be even the slightest bit > legally enforceable? > No they are not. You cannot enforce something when you do not have the recipient make an informed commitment to it. For example, you can hold a gun to someone's head and make them sign a contract. The second you walk away they take the contract to a court and bam, it's invalidated because they signed under duress. And if you look at recent court decisions, the definition of signing under duress has been -exceedingly- stretched these days. Nowadays if someone can convince a court that the contract holder ddn't completely inform them of every last little condition, they can invalidate the contract. And this is a signed, notarized, witnessed contract we are talking about. The idea that something like these disclaimers, or for that matter, software shrink wrap licenses, would hold any legal water is just preposterous. > I mean, for God's sake, they're at the bottom of the message, > essentially telling you not to read the message you just read. > It would make no difference where they were in the message. The people insisting on these disclaimers have absolutely no legal knowledge whatsoever. Ted