Automatic email footers are legally useless | Hacker News Reader

Automatic email footers are legally useless

economist.com

14 pointsj_baker8 comments

It does seem like a footer along the lines of

This message is not intended as legal advice. I am not your lawyer.

added to emails from lawyers or other law firm employees casually discussing legal issues could prevent the accidental creation of an attorney/client relationship. Something similar might help prevent liability for medical professionals trying to be helpful.

Of course, the vast majority of these are pointless and annoying. It's not usually possible to impose any legal obligations on someone simply by sending them an email.

Actually in certain circumstances it can impose a legal obligation. For example, I'm licensed to sell real estate in California. As a real estate agent, I can create an agency relationship by giving advice in an email. This means that if someone acted on my advice and was harmed by it that they'd have the right to seek damages.

I believe attorneysand CPA's have the same obligation. Unless it is explicitly understood that advice given does not create an agency relationship or something to that effect.

You can impose a legal obligation on yourself by sending an email, and that's what some of these footers are intended to avoid. I don't think you can impose a legal obligation on the recipient of a message though.

True. I wonder if the same would apply if this disclosure/terms were placed as the header with something along the lines of "by continuing to read this email you hereby agree to the following...", similar to TOS on websites.

Came here to say that. Seems like 2 of the 3 examples this article provides of useless disclaimers do not in fact attempt to unilaterally create a contractual obligation.

I wonder if people actually even notice an email footer these days or if they're ignored like most advertising. The only footers I ever notice are the ones that say "Sent from my iPhone [iPad]" but I'm biased and those are potential customers.

Does anyone not already know this? I thought that even though people still do it, even they themselves realise it's futile, and they do it just because it can't do any harm.

I don't think that such a case would rely on contract law. It would probably be based on the doctrine of confidence or possibly copyright law.

But like many things in life, it's a legal bluff. Just like those signs in parking lots that say "we accept no responsibility for damage". They're a legal bluff - the car park is a bailee and has to take responsibility if you push them on it.

Now it's time for my standard disclaimer:

    * I am not a lawyer
    * This is not legal advice
    * Your jurisdiction's laws may vary
    * Seek professional legal advice before doing anything, anywhere, at any time

Reply on news.ycombinator.com