[WikiEN-l] Re: New fair use tag proposal

[Michael Snow]

James D. Forrester wrote:

>Fastfission wrote:
>
>[Snip]
>  
>
>>Now, if you say ahead of time, "Well, we're not going to sue you" --
>>does that change anything? Not really. What if you changed your mind?
>>You're not bound *not* to sue us (or, put in a less accusatory way:
>>what if your group was suddenly acquired by someone else who did not
>>want to honor your previous informal agreement?).
>>    
>>
>Indeed; under 'Common Law' (at least in the UK, but I imagine that it is
>the same or at least very similar in the various districts of the United
>States), as contracts must have 'benefit' to both parties, thus promises
>not to sue cannot be contractual terms, merely nice frippery words. They
>are not legally binding in any way.
>  
>
The general principle certainly does apply to the US. Because of the 
importance placed on the availability of recourse to the legal system, 
courts generally disfavor agreements to surrender that right. Even if a 
promise not to sue was framed in contractual terms, it would have to be 
fairly explicit.

However, back to the situation that prompted this discussion, the 
statement in question is not a promise not to sue. Rather, it's a 
statement that would be held against the plaintiff if they exercised 
their right to sue.

--Michael Snow