[cabfpub] Limitation of Liability and Indemnification

[Moudrick M. Dadashov]

Thank you, Virginia.

I assumed binding works like this:

BR/EVG --> Webtrust/ETSI audit schemes --> Audit report --> CP/CPS --> 
Binding RPA/Subscriber Agreement

Agree?

Thanks,
M.D.

On 10/13/2017 12:38 AM, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:18:33 +0300
> From: "Moudrick M. Dadashov" <md at ssc.lt <mailto:md at ssc.lt>>
> To: Virginia Fournier via Public <public at cabforum.org 
> <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Limitation of Liability and Indemnification
> Message-ID: <3b9e4544-5b18-7535-c712-1cf544d7d8c5 at ssc.lt 
> <mailto:3b9e4544-5b18-7535-c712-1cf544d7d8c5 at ssc.lt>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Could you please explain why you think BR and EV Requirements are only
> binding on members of the Forum?
>
> Thanks,
> M.D.
>
> Hi M.D.
>
> I can see why this would be hard to understand.
>
> Entities who are not members of the Forum have nothing that would 
> legally bind them to abide by those limitations.  They aren’t members, 
> so they aren’t bound by any of the Forum documents - Bylaws, Baseline 
> Requirements, etc.  They don’t have a written agreement with the Forum 
> to abide by certain requirements, so they’re not bound that way either.
>
> The best way to make the limitations binding on the Subscribers, 
> Relying Parties, etc. would be for the CAs to enter into agreements 
> with those parties, and try to get them to agree to the limitations. 
>  But, again, they could just ignore the limitations.
>
> As an example, let’s say you and I make an agreement that you will 
> sell a car to my friend Bob for $5,000.  We sign the agreement and 
> you’re ready to deliver the car to Bob.  You get to Bob’s house, and 
> he wants the car for $2,000.  You say that you agreed with me to sell 
> it for $5,000.  Bob says tough turnips, he wasn’t part of that 
> agreement, it’s his money, and he won’t pay more than $2,000.  You 
> would have no choice but to sell Bob the car for $2,000 or find a new 
> buyer.  The agreement that you and I made for $5,000 isn’t binding on 
> Bob, because he wasn’t part of the agreement.  Does that make sense?
>
> Virginia
>
>
> On 10/13/2017 12:08 AM, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I want to weigh in on this from a legal perspective.
>>
>> The limitations on liabilities and indemnification provisions 
>> included in the Baseline Requirements and the EV Requirements are 
>> only binding on members of the Forum.  In other words, these 
>> limitations are not binding on parties such as Subscribers and 
>> Relying Parties, and they do not have to accept the stated amounts.
>>
>> So, CAs can try to obtain the limitations you?ve enumerated below, 
>> but they do not have to be accepted.  For example, a Subscriber could 
>> demand a unlimited liability, and the CA would have to decide how to 
>> proceed.
>>
>> Also, what is ?legally recognizable and provable claims? intended to 
>> cover, or exclude?
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Virginia Fournier
>> Senior Standards Counsel
>> ? Apple Inc.
>> ? 669-227-9595
>> ?? vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
>>
>>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Virginia Fournier
> Senior Standards Counsel
>  Apple Inc.
> ☏ 669-227-9595
> ✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171013/4028acc6/attachment-0003.html>