Procure compliance: Difference between revisions

{{confianat|Procure compliance}}Strolling right over to the [[chicken-licken]] bucket of sky and dunking your head in it, is this: Those {{confiprov|necessary recipient}}s to whom you have given {{confiprov|confidential information}}; you must also impose on them an [[equivalent]] duty of confidence to ''you'' (you know, ''[[mutatis mutandis]]'' and all that jazz) and [[procure]] that they comply with that agreement and even, in some magnificent marshaling of the latent powers of [[concurrent liability]], have the {{confiprov|necessary recipient}}s accept a parallel [[Non-contractual obligation|non-contractual]]<ref>Because no {{t|contract}}, see?  No [[Privity of contract|privity]]. Perhaps this is another use case for our old friend the much hated, but really quite useful if you use your imagination [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]].</ref>  [[duty of care]] directly to the {{confiprov|Discloser}}, and for the trifecta, agree to enforce your obligations against this poor sap at the direction or request of the {{confiprov|Discloser}}.

A calmer mind might reassure the poor, paranoid {{confiprov|discloser}} that if the {{confiprov|necessary recipient}} does go commando, the {{confiprov|discloser}}’s main interest ought to be suing the crap out of ''you'', the person to whom it entrusted the {{confiprov|confidential information}} in the first place, rather than ferretting down contractual chains it doesn’t know or understand and shouldn’t really have to care about.

Of course the real problem is, most likely, the {{confiprov|discloser}} won’t have suffered actionable [[loss]] at your — or the [[necessary recipient]]’s  — hands in any case. But let’s leave that sleeping elephant in the room lie for now.