Timeline for In UK law, what weight does an organisation's stated keywords/values have?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 14 at 10:06 | vote | accept | user3779002 | ||
| Jun 14 at 0:40 | comment | added | Barmar | Words like these are also quite vague. So even if there were some legal weight, it would be nearly impossible to determine whether someone was living up to them. Many people think Google stopped obeying their "don't be evil" motto years ago. | |
| Jun 13 at 23:29 | answer | added | ohwilleke | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 13 at 17:21 | comment | added | user3779002 | ... so to make explicit what I was trying to say, a "reasonable person" might very well suppose a non-profit regulator would actually mean what they claim everywhere. | |
| Jun 13 at 15:34 | history | edited | user3779002 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarify
|
| Jun 13 at 15:22 | comment | added | user3779002 | Now you mention it, I guess I have and a quick look <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery> is interesting, but that link also says "it identifies futile speech, typically of a seller, which does not give rise to legal liability. In a circular manner, legal explanations for this normative position describe the non-enforceable speech as a statement that no "reasonable person" would take seriously anyway". But this organisation is not a seller, but a significant UK non-profit regulator. | |
| Jun 13 at 15:17 | comment | added | Trish | Ever Heard the word puffery? | |
| S Jun 13 at 15:13 | review | First questions | |||
| Jun 13 at 15:48 | |||||
| S Jun 13 at 15:13 | history | asked | user3779002 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |