at the temporal coordinates: 2/20/02 1:31 AM, the entity known as Will
Reinhart at blue-dragon_at_tamu.edu conveyed the following:
>
> First shrink-wrap software licenses, now this?
> Can reading an email really be construed as agreeing to this sort of a
> contract? Putting the legalese about "by accepting and reviewing..." at
> the *bottom* of the email is in effect saying "If you've read this far,
> you've already agreed to our terms" This seems shady at best!
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 01:01:23 -0500
> Robert.J.Watkins_at_Flagstar.com wrote:
>
>> This correspondence may contain information that is confidential,
>> proprietary or "non-public personal information", as that term is defined
>> in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (collectively, "Confidential Information").
>> The Confidential Information is disclosed conditioned upon your agreement
>> that you will treat all Confidential Information confidentially and in
>> accordance with applicable law, ensure that such information is not used
>> or disclosed except for the limited purpose for which it is being provided
>> and will notify and cooperate with Flagstar Bank regarding any requested
>> disclosure or any unauthorized disclosure or use of any Confidential
>> Information. By accepting and reviewing the Confidential Information you
>> agree to indemnify Flagstar Bank against any losses or expenses, including
>> attorney's fees that Flagstar Bank may incur as a result of any
>> unauthorized use or disclosure of the Confidential Information due to your
>> acts or omissions. If this correspondence is received by a party other
>> than the intended recipient, you are requested to immediately notify us of
>> the erroneous delivery and return to us all information so delivered.
OK, I'm not a lawyer, but for a contract to be valid, there must be
"consideration" given. In other words, there has to be, in essence, an
exchange of value. I don't see any "good and valuable consideration" in an
e-mail, especially an "out of office" e-mail. Hopefully someone who can
explain this better, will. BTW, I don't see how a true shrink wrap license
could be binding, because you've had no opportunity to exercise "due
diligence" in examining the goods for which you're about to enter into
contract. But then, again, I'm not a lawyer.
(Totally aside, but... Ever notice how the 'geekspeak' acronym for "I Am
Not A Lawyer", IANAL, looks like an admission of a character flaw -- I
ANAL?)
- Eric.
--Eric Strobel (fyzycyst_at_NOSPAM^mailaps.org)
===================================================================== END RADIOPHOBIA!!! More nukes, less kooks!!! =====================================================================
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 10:03:23 EST