In message <caf8dc1c-2538-4e45-b19e-50490caa7...@gmail.com>, Fearghas Mckay <fearg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7 Nov 2015, at 21:13, Ronald F. Guilmette <r...@tristatelogic.com> >wrote: >>=20 >> P.S. By a very strange coincidence, I was recently investigating one >> particular spammed-for web site which, on its Terms and Conditions >> page, made what seemed at the time to be a rather obscure refrence to >> an equally obscure UK law. > >Incorrect - it is an English and Northern Irish law, not a UK law. It >does not apply in Scotland I stand corrected. Thank you sir. > and why it would apply to a Dutch company, >the RIPE NCC in this case, is somewhat uncertain as well. To be clear, I did not assert that the Act in question applied to RIPE, nor to any other Dutch entity. I only mentioned it because (a) the Wikipedia entry relating to this goes into some lengthy... and interesting... discussion of the various complexities introduced when third parties are named in contracts and also because (b) in my experience, statues and regulations found useful in one jurisdiction are often also adopted in others, and thus, the Act in question may perhaps have some sort of counterpart in Dutch law, even though that might be radically different in both scope and implications. If anyone here could in fact provide a summary of Dutch legislation and/or jurisprudence applicable to contractual third parties, that would be both helpful and illuminating at this juncture. However in lieu of that, I feel compelled to (re-)assert that which seems self-evident, i.e. that RIPE is indeed a third-party beneficiary within all LIR/end-user contracts, and that it is explicitly named as such therein. Regards, rfg
