Receiver - OneNDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Receiving Party to Receiving party) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{confianat|Receiver}}The | {{confianat|Receiver}}The [[legal person]] by whom a [[confidentiality obligation]] is owed, to be (but often not) sharply contrasted with its mortal earthly representatives, being its directors, officers, agents, employees and [[professional advisers]] for whom, should [[confidential information]] pass into their hands, it is contractually responsible. | ||
A confidentiality arrangement is notionally an asymmetrical one, which will prompt fears in the brow of the diligent [[legal eagle]] confronted with such a tract that it is therefore somehow ''one-sided''. A neat [[negotiation hack]] to dissuade this kind of thinking is to make the [[confidentiality agreement]] ''mutual'' even when, in point of actual fact, the parties only really anticipate the flow of [[confidential information]] going one way. It is a small and patently fatuous thing, but it does seem to work. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
{{c|Negotiation hacks}} | {{c|Negotiation hacks}} | ||
Revision as of 12:55, 10 March 2021
|
NDA Anatomy™
|
The legal person by whom a confidentiality obligation is owed, to be (but often not) sharply contrasted with its mortal earthly representatives, being its directors, officers, agents, employees and professional advisers for whom, should confidential information pass into their hands, it is contractually responsible.
A confidentiality arrangement is notionally an asymmetrical one, which will prompt fears in the brow of the diligent legal eagle confronted with such a tract that it is therefore somehow one-sided. A neat negotiation hack to dissuade this kind of thinking is to make the confidentiality agreement mutual even when, in point of actual fact, the parties only really anticipate the flow of confidential information going one way. It is a small and patently fatuous thing, but it does seem to work.