The obligations of confidentiality in this Agreement do not apply to any disclosure of Confidential Information: (a) required by law or by any court of competent jurisdiction or any regulatory, judicial, governmental or similar body; (b) that is reasonably necessary for the purpose of obtaining professional advice in relation to this Agreement; (c) that is reasonably necessary for the purpose of conducting or defending litigation arising out of or in connection with this Agreement; or (d) where the Receiving Party has obtained the prior written consent of the Disclosing Party to such disclosure.
This clause specifies that:
1) The standard confidentiality obligations imposed on the Receiving Party under the agreement do not apply to certain permitted disclosures of confidential information, including:
(a) Disclosures legally required to be made under law, by court order or by regulatory, governmental or similar authorities. I.e. mandatory disclosures outside of the Receiving Party's control or objection.
(b) Disclosures reasonably required to obtain confidential professional advice specifically related to the agreement itself. I.e. from legal counsel or other professionals bound by their own duty of confidence.
(c) Disclosures reasonably required in connection with conducting or defending potential legal proceedings arising directly from the agreement. I.e. to address disputes or claims between parties as needed.
(d) Any disclosures expressly consented to in writing by the Disclosing Party on a case by case basis. I.e. discretionary disclosures authorized explicitly by the information owner.
2) In short, certain unavoidable, professional, legally necessary or specifically approved disclosures of confidential information are permitted exemptions to the standard restrictions and obligations that otherwise apply under the agreement. But containment is still aimed for where reasonable and possible.
Key purposes and rationale for including permitted disclosers clauses are:
1) Contingency: Permitting certain essential types of disclosure outside of the Receiving Party's direct control or requiring professional input helps ensure the agreement can function as intended even when unpredictable issues emerge. Flexibility is built in for critical scenarios. But parameters aim to keep these contained.
2) Practicality: Recognizing mandatory legal, regulatory and advice-related disclosures as permitted exemptions reflects the practical realities of compliance and governance. Strict controls yield where unavoidable to facilitate continuity and address issues. Rigidity is avoided in favor of workability.
3) Professional ethics: Permitting disclosures in confidence to legal and other professional advisors relying on their own fiduciary duties helps ensure the Receiving Party has access to necessary counsel while still limiting spread of information. Reciprocal confidentiality standards are leveraged.
4) Responsiveness: Allowing case by case disclosures with express consent provides flexibility to adapt to new events or needs with input from the Disclosing Party. Unforeseen contingencies can be addressed through open communication without outright breach, but containment remains aimed for unless alteration is jointly agreed.
5) Limited waiver: Permitting certain exemptions to standard confidentiality obligations only for specifically defined and reasonably limited purposes helps ensure any relaxations of control are contained to necessity. Waiver of responsibility is confined, conditional and consented. Overall containment is still prioritized.
6) Shared understanding: Specifying permitted exemptions to confidentiality and the precise parameters around each helps ensure parties share understanding over how information may and may not be handled in foreseeable edge case scenarios. Assumptions are avoided, and responsibilities stay aligned.
7) Accountability: Maintaining a general obligation of limitation around even permitted disclosures where reasonably possible, and requiring case by case consent for discretionary disclosures, helps retain a degree of control and accountability within exemptions. Unfettered spread remains discouraged, and partnership is emphasized over unilateral action.
Early commercial exchange relied primarily on informal confidentiality norms, with little provision for contingencies requiring deviation from general duties of non-disclosure.
However, as trade grew more complex, issues arose demanding flexibility to address challenges through seeking professional input or disclosing information under mandatory obligations beyond users' control while still limiting spread where possible - continuity found prudence here, not rigidity alone. Into the 19th century, some agreements began permitting certain conditional exemptions to confidentiality restraints as a matter of practical wisdom, recognizing shared interest was served through provision enabling responsiveness as much as control - balancing limitations with functionality, not imposing terms in isolation from governing realities. While spare, these concepts acknowledged environment gives rise to the need for openness as much as containment - and prosperity followed partnership, not inflexibility.
By the early 20th century, confidentiality provisions commonly exempted unavoidable legal and professional disclosures from general obligations of non-disclosure to facilitate practical functionality, enabling freer exchange whilst still curbing excess - balancing restraints with reasonable permissibility. However, effectiveness remained substantially reliant on context, the capacity and willingness of parties to govern information prudently within exemptions based on shared standards. Compliance alone did not fulfil duty where judgement was wanting; and legitimacy found purpose, not rule itself. At their best, these clauses represented quest for accountability through difficulty, not unilateral control - aligning expectations through cooperation not imposition alone.
Mid-century onward, stricter regimes emerged to tightly govern disclosures but even prescriptive frameworks recognized practical wisdom - that regulation alone cannot unilaterally determine prudent outcomes or dictate events unconditioned by environment and governance realities. Containment depends on responsiveness as much as design. Today, while terms mandate intensity of control, prudent practice looks to shared limitations and duty to determine adequacy - compliance achieves through enabling reasonable openness when required as much as demanding restraint. At their best, permitted disclosers clauses aim for partnership through flexible stability - balance over inflexibility. They rely on judgement to oversee use within exemptions, aligning purpose through cooperation in adapting terms to events - not concentrating authority through imposition unrealistic in context or capability.
Mutual reliance emerges where we choose accountability over evading consequence through unreasonable demands; continuity follows where openness meets restraint. Prosperity relies on environment as much as mechanism. Wisdom, not instruction alone, finds way through. In the end, governance sustains where decree does not - and understanding, not compliance itself, aligns interests and secures shared wellbeing. Responsibility determines exemption, not permission alone - and oversight reaches as far as capacity, not claim. Trust remains partner to rules; and prosperity follows where we contain spread through care for surroundings, not control without it. Restraint attains through moderation, not rigid entitlement.
Continuity finds where exemptions meet prudent conduct between parties recognizing shared limits as much as rights. Outcomes rest in users and circumstance - not terms themselves. Effectiveness looks to enablement through restraint as much as control, balancing interests - not concentrating power. Equity relies on practical wisdom and fair cooperation where possibility allows - not imposition alone. Responsiveness proves ally to stability; and prosperity finds openness meeting oversight.