Receiver - OneNDA Provision: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m Amwelladmin moved page Receiving party to Receiver - OneNDA Provision
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|confi|}}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.  
{{confianat|1(a)}}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.  


{{confi mutuality}}
{{confi mutuality}}


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*{{confiprov|Discloser}}
*[[Negotiation hacks]]
*[[Negotiation hacks]]

Latest revision as of 17:00, 2 September 2021

NDA Anatomy™
JC’s guide to non-standard confidentiality agreements.
For the OneNDA, see the OneNDA Anatomy

The OneNDA clause
Confidential Information means information that is disclosed:

  1. by a party to this Agreement (the Discloser) or on the Discloser’s behalf by its authorised representatives or its Affiliates,
  2. to the other party to this Agreement (the Receiver), and
  3. in connection with the Purpose.

view template

Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

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 — should she be acting for a receiving party, at any rate — that it is therefore somehow one-sided, rigged in favour of the disclosing party. 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.

See also