In many organizations, legal boilerplate has nothing to do with what's reasonable in the law or even what a lawyer thinks is necessary.
"As the writer, I get as much monetary value as I can or at least make you believe as such and you give up as much monetary value as possible, or at least as much as I can scare or deter you from seeking. I also have no responsibilities and all rights, while you have all responsibilities and no rights."
It's simply expanded out a bit more and often gives explicit examples. It's completely unmanageable for any common citizen to process and understand what you almost have to agree to on daily basis to function in our ever more privatized world.
The amount of garbage I see on a daily basis wrapped with passive aggressive legal threats around every corner is mind numbing. I even still get emails from people who add footers that they own the information and if you receive it wrongfully, you're "required" to delete it.
We essentially have a bunch of children running around running society through businesses driven by greed who never fully socially developed into functioning reasonable and responsible adults.
The company can now sue the recipient or at least threaten him for disclosing stuff. Yes: the error is on the sender side, but in ye olde times the unspoken agreement was that you'd delete mails not addressed to you. Times have changed and so the legal boilerplate had to adapt.
A bit more common sense across the world, especially when it comes to the trend of resolving conflicts via courts instead of talking to one another and shaking hands, and there would be a lot less boilerplate and mind-bogglingly dumb disclaimers ("don't put any animals in microwaves") in this world.
I'm skeptical.
If the language doesn't actually prevent liability anyway, then get rid of it.
I occasionally get cold emails from recruiters that come with length NDAs at the bottom (often longer than the actual content of the email). I find it utterly silly, but at least it's a strong signal that I won't be missing anything good by ignoring it.
In ye olden days if you accidentally received someone else's mail it was a felony to open it. If anything the legal restrictions have been drastically reduced when it comes to email.
https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-federal-law...
GP said that the letter is addressed to you, but the content is intended for someone else. You can’t obstruct delivery because it’s been delivered to the right place (the address on the envelope).
If obstruction of delivery applied in this case then we would end up with the ludicrous scenario where I could deliberately address letters to you, that are intended for my boss, then demand that you somehow deliver or return the letters once you’ve opened them.
Imagine if I sent you thousands of these letters, it would be a postal and legal DDOS.
I imagine if you tried to abuse this and then sue your case would be laughed out of court. It would also be awfully expensive; compare the cost of postage to send all those letters with the cost of a rubber stamp to have them returned.