Subject:
|
Re: Stick in the mud...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:47:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
717 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> Scott A <s.arthur@hw.ac.uk> wrote:
> > What is the difference between the legal definition of these words & the
> > standard one? Educate me.
>
> 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 on here. Giving (or
> receiving) a gift doesn't necessarily
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
> imply or result in this level of
> relationship.
>
>
> --
> Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
> Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
85 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
