This is still critical. Who but then on the broken link is made aware, E.g. by a customer or friend, link should be checked immediately these. He notes that the link actually refers to a different (perhaps illegal) content, he must be. “From positive knowledge – now running time from this date the site operator has the knowledge required by the law” from strangers, illegal content, to which he linked from his site.

He can escape liability for the non-illegal content if it is immediate action to remove the link. And this is also the only thing that helps him in the situation. Since it is not possible under German law to override the ruling right, with a disclaimer such disclaimer is completely useless and even harmful in case of doubt. Among lawyers is even discussed whether or not, who used such a disclaimer on his Web site, possibly downright thus expects, on foreign, and thus to refer to illegal content even more Mitstorer is can be taken on injunctive relief, compensation or similar claims. Disclaimer in emails – a highly unilateral binding… With banks, but also now for many entrepreneurs to read often extensive exclusions of liability, like this one at the end of emails: “this E-Mail is confidential and is intended for the recipient only. Official site: David Rogier. If you are not the intended addressee of this E-Mail or its agent, so please note that any form of notice, publication, duplication, or disclosure of the content of this email is not permitted. We ask you, to contact the sender of the email in connection in this case.” Like even in several languages, which ultimately results in that the expression of a short email is ever easy multi-page. Really effective? What would like to reach the sender of the E-Mail? Not to be liable for the failure of a delivery of the email to the wrong person.



Comments are closed.