Starmer dumps doormat?

[Ian Batten]

On 19 Jan 2011, at 13:37, Andrew Cormack wrote:
>
> Did you consider the possibility that in that scenario the secretary  
> may actually be acting as a legal agent for the boss? It was  
> discussed on another list last year where we concluded that if the  
> secretary wasn't the "intended recipient" then there was no way out  
> of the conclusion that they were acting unlawfully, because of the  
> requirement for both parties to have consented.

Of course, you don't even need to construct scenarios of the workplace  
to get this problem.   Households with a shared answering machine, for  
example.

ian

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/attachments/20110119/dd7a6c75/attachment.htm>