What&#39;s the significance of boxed text in a document? What is the lawful implication of text enclosed within a (stroked) text box in a document? I have heard this means this text is left out of the contract, or possibly adds an exception to it. I included an example of what I describe.
What is the lawful implication of text enclosed within a (stroked) text box in a document? I have heard this means this text is left out of the contract, or possibly adds an exception to it. You are mistaken. The boxed language means that the notary public who authenticates the document has liability only if an imposter signs the contract, not for anything else in the contract. The liability of the person signing the contract is not affected by the boxed language. For example, suppose that someone purporting to be Fred signs an affidavit of Fred in a real estate transaction that falsely states that the real estate is free of toxic waste when the person signing it knows that it is actually a toxic waste burial site. If the affidavit that Martin, a notary public, notarizes is actually signed by Jane, then Martin and Jane both have liability to anyone harmed by the fact that the buyer in the real estate transaction believed that the affidavit was signed by Fred when it was not. But, if the affidavit is actually signed by Fred, then Fred may have liability to someone harmed by the fact that the affidavit was false, but Martin will not have liability for notarizing Fred's signature. This is the default rule of U.S. law in any case, so the boxed language doesn't actually have any legal effect. The boxed language is probably present to alert people, such as people from Latin America or Europe, who are familiar with a legal regime in which a notary public has a more expansive set of responsibilities than a notary public does in the U.S.
The contract is enforceable No one is in any doubt that the parties to the contract are you and Smith Homes and everyone knows that Smith Homes means Smith Homes LLC. The written document is only evidence of the contract, the contract is the entire commercial relationship. Contracts are not invalid because they have typos or minor irregularities- otherwise virtually no written one would be. The law can be very pragmatic sometimes.
Like many other jurisdictions, in the UK sites like the Daily Mail are liable for the content they host. In other words, the legal issue here is they either do not have the staff available to (or simply do not want to) spend the time moderating the comment sections in order to remove potentially defamatory or otherwise illegal content. As Lag added in a comment below: another legal reason may be liability for publishing something that creates a substantial risk of seriously impeding or prejudicing the course of justice in some ongoing legal proceeding. Far easier to prevent it beforehand than moderate it (and risk missing it) later. Content on Twitter (for example, replies to their own tweets), on the other hand, is not the Daily Mail's problem to moderate.
You clearly cannot provide data that you haven't stored – and not storing data is a good thing under the Art 5(1)(c) Data Minimization Principle. Despite the Art 20 data portability right being conditional on that the data subject has provided data and not on that data has been stored, I think responding to such a request with “sorry, as per our privacy policy we do not store this data” would be perfectly fine. It is also curious that you are using consent as the legal basis for the purpose of selecting the website language. How do you obtain consent from visitors? How can you prove that you got consent? In many ways, consent is the legal basis of last resort, and I'd think that legitimate interest would be a much more straightforward approach in your case.
Because the ordinance does not say &quot;and from each entrance&quot;, it cannot be interpreted to mean that the signs must both be visible and readable anywhere in the area as well as being visible and readable from the entrance. The use of distinct prepositions in the conjuncts means that the notice requirement can be satisfied by different signs: it's not that a sign has to have both properties.
You probably can. There are a few questions here. First, is the message protected by copyright? In general, it probably is, but there are many exceptions that might allow you to use it without permission. Unfortunately, these exceptions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The exceptions tend to allow the use of small excerpts of a work for various sorts of purposes that don't undermine the copyright holder's ability to profit. That leads to the second question, which is why you are using that message. If you're including it in your source code so you can test whether a message generated at run time is in fact that message, that's one thing, and it's probably okay. On the other hand, if the owner of the copyright sells a database of all its message strings, and you're compiling a similar database that you also intend to sell, that's probably not okay. A third question concerns the Firefox license terms. It's entirely possible that they allow you explicitly to do what you're considering, in which case it doesn't matter what copyright law says about it. On the other hand, Firefox is open source software, and under some open source licenses, if you incorporate any of the source code in your own product, you are required to release your product's source code under the same license. If you're not already planning to do that, you should consider carefully whether including that error message would trigger that provision (if there is one) of Firefox's open source license.
While &quot;clause&quot; has a specific definition in linguistics, that is not how it is used in laws and legal documents. These terms have no standard definition for legal writing. Documents or legal codes that use both generally use &quot;article&quot; to mean a larger division than &quot;clause&quot; does. In discussion of the US Federal Constitution, for example, the largest divisions are called &quot;articles&quot;, each of which is divided into several &quot;sections&quot;, and each section generally contains several &quot;clauses&quot;. Some of these are actually grammatical clauses, being part of a sentence with a verb and a subject, while others might be called paragraphs in ordinary prose. A given document or legal code should ideally define which terms it will use for its parts, and which contain which others. This can be done in whatever way the drafters wish, but it is desirable that it be clear. In addition to the terms you have mentioned, terms often used include &quot;subsection&quot;, &quot;subsubsection&quot;, &quot;title&quot;, &quot;paragraph&quot;, &quot;subparagraph&quot;, &quot;chapter&quot;, &quot;part&quot; and &quot;division&quot;. These are not used consistently, and I have never seen a single document or code that uses all of them. The Us law code is divided into titles, each of which contains sections. In some of these sets of related sections are grouped into chapters. Sections may have subsections or paragraphs. In my experience smaller contracts or business documents rarely use &quot;articles&quot; and some just use &quot;section&quot; for any named or numbered part of the document. Usually titles or section headers are explicitly stated to have no legal effect, and the division into sections or other parts is simply to facilitate reference, and does not have legal significance. Whether a provision is called an article, a section, or a clause will not normally change its legal effect. However, where one part of a document refers to another part, such as &quot;as specified in section 23&quot; then the reference will be found in and only in the designated part, and will not be looked for in some other part.
The question contains an incorrect assumption -- the assumption that this manuscript or any ancient manuscript is protected by copyright. As can be seen in this well known chart under US law an unpublished document, such as a manuscript, is protected for only 70 years after the death of the author, or 120 years after the work was created if the death date is not known, or the identity of the author is not know, or the work is of corporate authorship. A work written by a person who lived from circa 950 to circa 1010 is in the public domain under US law, with no room for doubt. The exact term of copyright protection may vary somewhat under the laws of other countries, but in none of them is a document written by a person who died over 1,000 years ago protected by copyright. This work is in the public domain, and no one owns any copyright in it. (A manuscript whose author died after 1948, or that was created after 1898 might well be protected by copyright.) [The statement in italics above is apparently incorrect. It seems that under UK law such a work may be under copyright if it is unpublished. IMO this is a bizarre result but such seems to be the law.] The current owners of the physical manuscript can control who has access to it, and on what terms. Thy could use an NDA or other contract to prevent such people from publishing or distributing the text. But if they allow general access to it, they have published it, and anyone may legally republish it as they see fit. Any person allowed access under a restrictive contract to which s/he has agreed may do whatever that contract permits, and not what it does not. A modern derivative work, such as an annotated edition, or a translation, would have its own copyright, but this would not protect the original text. If the original question means that there is an unpublished manuscript recent enough to be under copyright, then its author or the author's heir or the person or entity to whom the copyright was sold or given or left owns the copyright. In that case, no one may make a copy of the manuscript, including a transcription, or of any part of it, unless with permission from the copyright holder, or in such limited ways as is permitted by fair dealing (in the UK and much of Europe) or fair use (in the US). The question does not give enough detail to judge if the partial copy suggested would qualify -- this always depends heavily on the specific facts of the case. It seems that under UK law some unpublished works are protected which would be in the public domain if they were published. I am not sure how they can be share without being legally "published" and so lose protection.