Hiku said:
sc94597 said:
In most jurisdictions sharing other people's offers is more harshly punished than sharing one's own (which in some jurisdictions, but not the U.K from what I gather) is a full legal right which an NDA can't enforceably infringe. Things become more complicated though if they are protecting themselves or the company's image from a lie. I doubt this would be a simple case, but Platinum probably has a higher risk in the situation. |
Ah, that makes sense. One reason I asked if they'd also be off the hook if Hellena was, is because a punishment more harsh than nothing could still end up having to be nothing, if there's nothing enforacle about it. But I guess that would depend on the details of the NDA they signed, and/or the laws of the countries that apply. Can you not have clauses in an NDA that say something to the effect of, if the other party discloses any of the information that falls under NDA, they relenquish any confidentiality priveledges, and the company will be in its full right to also disclose the details? Because if that's possible, it seems like a no brainer to include that in these types of NDA's? JWeinCom: Don't believe they're saying it would be non-enforceable, just that it might be depending on local law. For example, if there was a part of the contract saying "you are not to say anything if you are sexually harassed by Kamiya-san" that would almost certainly be against local law everywhere. The main difference in your theoretical situation would be that the translator did not sign the contract. They themselves are probably not covered by the NDA with Taylor, although they probably have their own NDA with Platinum. Taylor could not sue them personally for breach of contract, probably, but Platinum could, probably. But, Taylor could probably sue the translator for public disclosure of private facts or something along those lines (assuming for simplicity's sake that Taylor never said anything publicly about the negotiations). Or defamation if what they said was not true. Taylor could also probably sue Platinum games, on a theory of respondeat superior, where an employee is held liable for the actions of its employees, or if Platinum negligently supervised or trained the translator. You can try to argue that the translator was acting on behalf of platinum, that they did not do enough to make sure translators respected NDAs, or so on. There is a lot of nuance there, so it's impossible to say what would happen. Not sure if that answered your question, but there probably isn't a clean answer, cause there are a lot of overlapping areas of law and legal theories here. |
@JWeinCom
Yes, I didn't expect there to be a clear answer, but I was looking for some insight like this, so thanks for that.
Though since you work in law as well, I'd ask you the same question as above. Can you not have clauses in an NDA that say something to the effect of, if the other party discloses any of the information that falls under NDA, they relenquish any confidentiality priveledges, and the company will be in its full right to also disclose the details? Because if that's possible, it seems like a no brainer to include that in these types of NDA's? |
To be clear, I don't work in this field at all. It's stuff you study the basics of in law school, but my knowledge is limited.
In general, I don't think that would have to be put in an NDA. When someone breaches a contract, you naturally have the right to take action that would prevent damage from that breach. If you and I had a contract that I would send you 500 dollars and you'd send me a PS5, and I don't send you the money, you don't have to send me the PS5. That's breaching your responsibility, but I obviously can't sue you for that.
Similarly, if we both agree not to discuss a certain matter publicly, and I discuss it publicly, then I couldn't sue you if you revealed information to defend yourself.
So, if the only agreement they made was not to discuss any offers, and she said, "I was only offered 4,000 dollars" I would think that Platinum can show part of the contract that shows she was offered more. I think it's implied for the most part. But a lot of details can complicate things.
