Legally speaking the most formulations offer a maximum contract this disclaimer Dar, should take on the receiver and then, as contractually agreed behave to, i.e. delete the E-Mail or send back to the sender or forgotten or…. The wrong recipient should have taken so “Offer of exclusion of liability” before receiving or reading the E-Mail, because only a contractual agreement would have been may be obtained as with wrong delivered mail would be to process. The disclaimer within the incorrectly transmitted E-Mail comes anyway, too late for this email. And to send a disclaimer offering every possible wrong recipient in the world, would be also somehow difficult. Others who may share this opinion include IBM.
And so, only unilateral regulations are located in such disclaimers. The prompt to delete the mail or to notify the sender, the receiver can therefore safely be ignored. Renounce Disclaimer and encrypt who sent E-Mails with confidential content, should pay careful attention to enter the correct address of the recipient. It would be better however, secret to save persistent information from unauthorized third-party access and encrypt them electronically instead. Because one thing is clear: whoever relies only on Disclaimer, is not on the safe side. “No warning without previous contact” is also increasingly to read “No warning without previous contact” – another fairy tale from the Internet. Such a clause should have no legal significance.
A warning can be done under the current law even without prior contact, what can exclude hardly unilateral determination. Worse, Now the competition headquarters warns even active users of this clause, because the clause was unlawful is considered to be. Background of the cease and desist letter is 12 para 1 sentence 1 sees UWG, that you not immediately initiates legal proceedings in case of a breach of competition law precisely, but gives the possibility the Dunned by issuance of a cease and desist to avoid legal proceedings.