Law Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Supposing that a "disclaimer of liability" is phrased in such a way that the meanings of sentences are independent of each other - would the order of presentation of the sentences have any impact on its legal standing as a document?
For example, given the disclaimer here, I produce a few permutations here , here , and here.
Are all the permutations equivalent in terms of legal meaning?
Yes they are equivalent.
However, the particular disclaimers breach consumer protection law in many parts of the world and may actually be punishable with a fine.
Superficially, they seem equivalent, but in the absence of a specific factual context it is hard to know.
For example, suppose that the contract language above replaces similar language in a previous contract, and one party claims that it is an amendment to the old contract (and hence does not require new regulatory approval) while another party claims that this is a new contract that replaces an old contract (and hence requires new regulatory approval). If the language is identical and in identical order in both contracts, that would argue in favor of a finding that it is part of an amended contract, while a different order would tend to argue in favor of it being a new contract.
Similarly, some consumer protection laws require that specific boilerplate language be included verbatim copied from the statute to comply with the law, and only one of those versions might be a verbatim copy that strictly complies with the legal requirement, while with the others, a litigant would have to argue that substantial compliance with the statute is sufficient.
So, while the order wouldn't usually matter, there are factual circumstances where one could imagine that it would matter.
