Who can I share it with? - OneNDA Provision: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 29: Line 29:
It is the receiver’s problem, in other words, to make sure its agents are not clowns.
It is the receiver’s problem, in other words, to make sure its agents are not clowns.


=== Excluding professional advisers ===
You may see some flummery along these lines:
You may see some flummery along these lines:


{{Quote|...except that there shall be no requirement to inform a recipient of the confidential nature of the information if it is subject to professional obligations to maintain confidentiality or is otherwise already bound by requirements of confidentiality.}}
{{Quote|...except that there shall be no requirement to inform a recipient of the confidential nature of the information if it is subject to professional obligations to maintain confidentiality or is otherwise already bound by requirements of confidentiality.}}


This is well-intended and harmless — lawyers are innately bound by confidence and privilege, so it goes without saying — and it rather points up the misconception of contractually requiring such a notice or a back-to-back arrangement in the first place. For failing to give the necessary notice is not the thing: no consequences flow intrinsically from that. What matters is that the delegated recipient keeps the information to itself. If it ''does'', it doesn’t matter that no-one told it it had to. If it does ''not'', it doesn’t matter that everyone did.
This is meant to carve-out lawyers, accountants and those subject to professional codes that imply a relationship of trust and confidence. This is well-intended and, practically, harmless — lawyers are innately bound by confidence and privilege, so it goes without saying — but technically, it is wrong, and misunderstands the contractual chain. Just because someone is already bound to some sacred obligation of confidentiality to ''you'' does not mean you should not commit to remind her of for the benefit of someone else.
 
Also, it rather points up the misconception of contractually requiring such a notice or a back-to-back arrangement in the first place. For ''failing to give the necessary notice'' is not the thing: no consequences flow intrinsically from that. What matters is that the delegated recipient keeps the information to itself. If it ''does'', it doesn’t matter that no-one told it it had to. If it does ''not'', it doesn’t matter that everyone did.


==General==
==General==