 | | Re: Stick in the mud...
|
| (...) to (...) What is the difference between the legal definition of these words & the standard one? Educate me. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Stick in the mud...
|
| (...) As I hope we all know, I'm not a lawyer. But: Sponsorship/endorsement constitutes a special sort of relationship which implies a level of responsibility. If Lego sponsored LUGnet in this sense, they could be legally responsible for what goes (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Stick in the mud...
|
| (...) There is some common ground between us, the fact that a gift does not "necessarily" imply what I said it could, means that the text is not 100% clear. Do you agree? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Stick in the mud...
|
| (...) Both Lego and LUGnet claim that it does not. This resolves any uncertainty. If there were no disclaimer, there might be some question. However, the statements of both parties remove that completely. (24 years ago, 9-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Stick in the mud...
|
| (...) Lego and LUGNET agree that there is no implied or actual support or sponsorship. That's pretty clear, right? Or is Scott claiming that one or both parties are not being truthful? I can't see much reason for continuing this silliness... (24 years ago, 9-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
