True

“Virtues don't excuse sins; they cohabit with them.”

Ta-Nahesi Coates, the Atlantic, "Hitchens And The War"

Quote of the Day

An “unbiased source” is a source we don’t understand well enough to perceive its bias.

Commenter "Anderson" at "Lawyers, Guns and Money" blog.

Incorporation by Reference

"The method of making one document of any kind become a part of another separate document by referring to the former in the latter, and declaring that the former shall be taken and considered as a part of the latter the same as if it were fully set out therein."

[Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p.690.]

It is not uncommon for contracts to remain short and readable by ensuring that a great deal of the meat-and-potatoes clauses are found elsewhere; it is a good way of avoiding contracts that are unnecessarily long and detailed. The ones that most Canadians will be familiar with are "Standard Charge Terms" in a mortgage. The mortgage itself will only be a page or so -- of very fine print -- but it will have a box indicating which Standard Charge Terms apply; a "Standard Charge Terms" is the often massive document detailing each and every right and obligation under a mortgage: interest calculations, prepayment rights, power of sale, and so on.


NOTE:
PDFs of what appear to be all the currently used Standard Charge Terms have been very helpfully posted by the Orillia Law firm of Lewis Downey Tornosky Lassaline & Timpano, PC, and can be found here.

I don't do personal injury

Source: http://baskers.tumblr.com/post/4397208044/i-still-wants-one
via
Dr. Lynette Nusbacher on Twitter

C-28: How the anti-spam bill may effect your business

David Canton of Harrison Pensa is a lawyer specializing in electronic law. He recently wrote an article for the London Free Press (and also found on his blog) where he brings our attention to some potential problems that businesses large and small will face under the new laws aimed at reducing spam:

The anti-spam bill was recently passed [David Sanders: Bill C-28 is here in Bill form, and the final version is here on the federal e-law site), and here is a one-page HTML version on Canlii], and will be in force this year. It gives new tools to fight spam, but unfortunately defines spam so broadly that it will affect how most organizations conduct business.

Businesses can’t just ignore the legislation. Remedies include fines of up to $1 million for individuals, $10 million for others […]

An e-mail to just one person you met at an event who you consider a potential customer may be considered spam [and] “electronic message” is broadly defined […]

Messages will not be considered spam if the recipient has consented to receiving the message. But it is up to the sender to show the recipient has consented if there is a complaint [...]"

and what constitutes "consent" is a complicated thing. David Canton strongly recommends that all businesses and charities review the consent provisions to determine if their electronic communication policies need to change.

The Act also links consent to purpose:

since my e-mail address is published on my firm’s website and other places, you may be able to e-mail me with anything relevant to the practice of law — but you won’t be able to e-mail me trying to sell me a trip. If I hand you my business card, the same applies.

Canton correctly notes that -- as with many pieces of legislation -- the devil will be in the details of the regulations that the legislature and bureaucracy will create to implement and enforce this Act, and those regulations haven't been published yet.

To keep tabs on e-law issues, keep an eye on David Canton’s blog on the topic.