Confidentiality Agreement For Email
In order to reach an agreement, the parties must effectively enter into an effective or tacit contract. The formation of a contract requires the demonstration of certain things, including offer, acceptance, consideration and mutual intention to be bound by the treaty. With respect to the latter element, the parties must demonstrate that they have obtained mutual consent (i.e. the meeting of minds), but since judges are not thought readers, they assess the encounter of minds on an objective and non-subjective basis. This means that the courts measure the intent of the parties from the perspective of a reasonable person in an identical or similar situation. Confidentiality obligations are usually due to a contract, for example. B signing a confidentiality agreement (in my business practice, I deal a lot with NDAs). Contracts, as you probably know, require both sides to agree - what the law calls a "meeting of minds." If you write a standard confidentiality clause at the end of each corporate email, the recipient of an email is not unilaterally subject to the confidentiality obligation. It does not unilaterally link the recipient to an agreement regarding the e-mail foot, because you cannot unilaterally impose a duty of confidentiality on someone. If they are not already required to keep the information you share with them confidential (for example. B due to signing a confidentiality agreement (NDA) or for some other reason), your email warning won`t change that - the recipient can do what he wants with your email. This standard e-mail footnote is used to protect solicitor-client privilege, which generally applies to communication between a lawyer and his client, provided that such communications are not transmitted to third parties (or made for the purpose of committing an offence or unlawful act). It is one of the oldest recognized privileges of confidential communication.
It is crucial for the lawyer-client relationship, because it gives clients confidence that they can be open and that their lawyers are better able to offer honest and effective advice. The possibility of transfer to third parties is the specific reason why the disclaimer is included. If you`ve got an environmental responsibility clause that makes you think, go ahead. I doubt it saves a lot of trees (someone who is inclined to print an email will probably still print the email) and, where someone prints an email anyway, the disclaimer adds one or two lines. Let me ask you what the net result is... One way or another, but I see the thinking behind that kind of non-responsibility and I`m not going to argue against it. Many people, including those at The Economist, question the effectiveness of exclusions from liability via e-mail. A New York lawyer (kudos to another lawyer for providing such practical advice!) described electronic disclaimers as the modern equivalent of mattress labels: "And has anyone ever been arrested for ripping them off?" he asked the Wall Street Journal.