Re: FAQ disclaimers--should I bother?

Mark Eckenwiler (eck@panix.com)
Sat, 17 Dec 1994 23:46:35 -0500 (EST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Paola Kathuria: "Re: FAQ disclaimers--should I bother?"
Previous message: Terry Carroll: "Re: FAQ disclaimers--should I bother?"
In reply to: Terry Carroll: "Re: FAQ disclaimers--should I bother?"
Next in thread: Paola Kathuria: "Re: FAQ disclaimers--should I bother?"

Terry Carroll sez:
+
+ This article is provided as is without any express or implied
+ warranty. Nothing in this article represents the views of Cooley
+ Godward Castro Huddleson & Tatum or its clients.
+
+ While all information in this article is believed to be correct at
+ the time of writing, this article is for educational purposes only
+ and does not purport to provide legal advice. If you require legal
+ advice, you should consult with a legal practitioner licensed to
+ practice in your jurisdiction.
+
+ Mark, I don't have a copy of either of your FAQs handy; what do you use?

"This FAQ is provided for informational purposes only. The author has
neither formed an attorney-client relationship with nor offered legal
advice to the reader. For legal advice, consult individually with an
attorney admitted to practice in your state." [From the FACE FAQ]

Next message: Paola Kathuria: "Re: FAQ disclaimers--should I bother?"
Previous message: Terry Carroll: "Re: FAQ disclaimers--should I bother?"
In reply to: Terry Carroll: "Re: FAQ disclaimers--should I bother?"
Next in thread: Paola Kathuria: "Re: FAQ disclaimers--should I bother?"

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]