--- Forwarded Message from James Hogg <[log in to unmask]> --- >Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:57:27 -0400 >From: James Hogg <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: #7665 Quitting Chinese Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health >In-reply-to: <[log in to unmask]> >To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum <[log in to unmask]> >References: <[log in to unmask]> This is very interesting. The disclaimer is not for Chinese, Spanish or any specific textbook, but rather for their entire corporation. McGraw-Hill has been a tremendous backer of the "Leave No Child Behind" act. They are earnestly preparing materials for teachers to "teach for the test." I think this protects them from much larger law suits when schools become disqualified for federal education money after buying hook line and sinker into McGraw-Hill's education solutions. http://www.trelease-on-reading.com/whatsnu_bush-mcgraw.html Its not about educating its about testing and who will not be held accountable. Jim On Oct 8, 2004, at 4:09 PM, LLTI-Editor wrote: > --- Forwarded Message from Judy Shoaf <[log in to unmask]> --- > >> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 17:28:35 -0400 >> From: Judy Shoaf <[log in to unmask]> >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.3) >> Gecko/20030312 >> To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum > <[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Quitting Chinese Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your >> Health >> References: <[log in to unmask]> >> In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> > > > Ed Dente cites the following CD license clause: > >> "Licensee shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend Princeton, its >> trustees, officers, employees, students, and agents against any and >> all >> claims, suits, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, fees and expenses >> (including reasonable attorneys' fees) resulting out of the exercise >> of >> this License. (following emphasis mine): THIS INDEMNIFICATION SHALL >> INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR WHICH EITHER >> PARTY IS ALLEGED OR TO HAVE BEEN WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY NEGLIGENT." > > This is fascinating! There is a note which McGraw-Hill asks to have > posted with the audio files for its language textbooks, and which I > suppose is included on their own copies of their Material: > ___________________________________________ > McGraw-Hill makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy > of > any information contained in the McGraw-Hill Material, including any > warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In > no > event shall McGraw-Hill have any liability to any party for special, > incidental, tort, or consequential damages arising out of or in > connection with the McGraw-Hill Material, even if McGraw-Hill has been > advised of the possibility of such damage. > ___________________________________________ > > I think the point is that you can't sue the company if you don't learn > Spanish from their Spanish textbook. They do not warranty the fitness > of > the textbook for the particular purpose of learning the subject. That's > all I can think of. > > Who would sue Princeton as a result of getting access to their Chinese > course? Presumably a student who flunked Chinese. And they might have a > case, if they got a defective CD or one that wouldn't play properly--or > was supposed to be available online but wasn't at the crucial moment, > which would be the Licensee's negligence. > > Perhaps there have been such suits...? Or perhaps the lawyers have > thought there might be? I can see a distant possibility for such a suit > if the student was provided with a defective or badly engineered > electronic textbook (I went to study for the final and found I could no > longer access the first five chapters...). > > Judy Shoaf >