Source: http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/legal-effect-of-boilerplate-email-disclaimers/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:06:21+00:00

Document:
Boilerplate email disclaimers have become so commonplace that many of us don’t even notice their existence. Are these email disclaimers of any effect? One website touts the necessity of these lengthy paragraphs, while The Economist wrote in 2011 that these automatic email footers are both annoying and “legally useless.” So who is correct? As you might suspect since a lawyer is writing this, the answer is: it depends.
Utilizing email disclaimers to reinforce confidential communication is one use that has shown some evidentiary value. One federal district court ruled that an email beginning with the phrase “PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION” evidenced the client’s “intent to seek legal advice and the client’s belief that he is consulting an attorney, i.e., someone who will keep the communications confidential.” Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102461, 23 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2010).
In fact, the downside of not including such a disclaimer may be detrimental. According to one court, the lack of email disclaimer about the confidentiality of a customer list evidenced that the materials were not intended to be confidential. B & F Sys. v. LeBlanc, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103957, 77 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 14, 2011).
A disclaimer of authority of agents or employees to bind their principals or employers appears to have some effect. One court found such to be evidence of an intention not to form a contract where the disclaimer stated that the email “does not in any case constitute a binding offer, acceptance or opinion for [the principal] unless so set forth in a separate document.” McCoy v. Gamesa Tech. Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38745, 17-18 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2012).
Yet another disclaimer that made clear that an insurance agent did not have the authority to bind an insurance company before a policy was issued was found to be effective. Sunny Corral Mgmt., LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46679, 7-8 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2010).
A disclaimer may make it clear that contract terms are not set without further action. One federal district court found that an email disclaimer stating that any “price or other contract term contained in this email is subject to approval” prevented the formation of a valid contract by e-mail alone. Dhillon v. Zions First Nat’l Bank, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4605, 2-3, 9 (11th Cir. Ga. Mar. 6, 2012).
However, an email alone was found insufficient to grant a motion to dismiss where the email disclaimer stated “[t]his is a confidential draft and is not for use by any party for any reason.” Blackwater Techs., Inc. v. Synesi Group, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2744, 4, 15 (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2008). Rather, this was found to be a matter best decided on a motion for summary judgment after the facts could be developed in discovery.
These cases evidence that the effect of a disclaimer will likely depends upon all of the surrounding circumstances, including the disclaimer’s language, the text of the email at issue and the context in which it was sent.
To maximize the chances that such a disclaimer might be found effective, it may be better practice to place it at the beginning, not the end, of an email. However, if one were to do that for all e-mails sent, one might wonder if one really meant for the disclaimer to apply. It might be better practice to use disclaimers sparingly to certain particular emails only, not to every email sent.
Notably absent from these cases is any finding by a court that boilerplate language at the bottom of every email about matters that only pertain to certain emails is of any conclusive effect. Such language is often found in attorney emails relating to confidentiality, formation of an attorney-client relationship, or other matters that are disclaimed in an abundance of caution. While that doesn’t mean a court could not find some value in boilerplate language, the lack of such a case is telling.
Are disclaimers “legally useless” as The Economist reports? Probably not, but their effectiveness may be more limited than some believe.
This blog post is the exclusive, private, confidential, and privileged property of the blogger. This information contained in it is intended solely for the use of the blogger and the intended recipient(s).
I believe an important issue in the Zions Bank case was that the e-mail stated a designee could approve the deal. Dhillon made an offer that was countered by the bank, Dhillon accepted the counter-offer without any further negotiation and proceeded to place a deposit on the properties.
The e-mail with the counter-offer contained very specific terms that clearly identified the property, the price of each property, a closing date and finally a sentence that stated all the “terms and conditions” as agreed upon. The disclaimer appeared below the signature of the banks designee.
The issues on appeal were whether Plaintiff-Dhillon, had a contract under Uniform Electronic Trade and Signature Act. Plaintiff also argued on appeal that the court erred by failing to allow discovery.
As stated in this blog the placement of the disclaimers, above the signature line and whether they are automatically generated are important considerations but cannot ignore the context of UCC and Electronic Signatures.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.