[thelist] liability and the web

John Handelaar genghis at members.evolt.org
Fri Jul 6 05:54:46 CDT 2001


> -----Original Message-----
> From: thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org
> [mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of Erik Mattheis
> Sent: 06 July 2001 06:36
> To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
> Subject: Re: [thelist] liability and the web
> 
> 
> <snip>
> >  >8. WARRANTIES AND LIABILITY.  Gozz does not warrant that the
> >  >functions of the web site will meet the client's expectations of site
> 
> </snip>
> 
> >This is a genuine clause?? And it's legal (like being upheld in court)??
> >NO WAY will that fly in the UK. Lucky you.
>
> Why wouldn't it be OK in the UK? It puts a qualification on the 
> services provided and nobody's forcing anyone to sign anything ...

Because:

1.  English (and Scottish too) law carries with it a number
of assumptions.  One of those is what's 'reasonable'.  Under no
circumstances would a court decide that it was 'reasonable'
to presume a client would have explicitly agreed to such a 
ridiculous clause.

2.  In any case, this kind of clause is explicitly ruled out as
verboten by several pieces of consumer legislation (including,
I think, the Sales of Goods Act and whatever its Scots equivalent
is).  Those laws include clauses such as this for the simple reason
that they NEVER act in the interests of the consumer and they are
by design NEVER intended to be read by the consumer.

I should point out should a consumer in the US sign a contract 
filled with legalese nonsense like this, without first taking
legal counsel, the contract is basically worthless in almost all
US jurisdictions as well.

------------------------------------------
John Handelaar

T +44 20 7209 4117       M +44 7930 681789
F +44 870 169 7657   E john at userfrenzy.com
------------------------------------------ 






More information about the thelist mailing list