| | | | |
| ||
 | ||
 |  | |
| ||
|
To the editor: I am writing in reference to an inaccurate statement attributed to me in a recent Reporter article, "The countdown is on" (Nov. 4 issue). The article was a summary of a Y2K presentation I made to the Computer Users Committee / Management Forum Meeting on November 1, 1999. There, I gave a general overview of the McGill Y2K Project - our work, challenges, plans for the Y2K weekend, Y2K legal issues, etc. Unfortunately, I was not consulted on the content of the article before publication. In the article, I was misquoted as saying that McGill was "legally liable" in cases where McGill researchers involved in contracts with deliverables were sued for not dealing with Y2K, and who had problems as a result. This could mean loss or contamination of data or otherwise, an inability to deliver on the stated terms of a contract. As the University Legal Advisor has often said, making a determination on liability is a complex exercise which must take into account several factors, such as the nature of a Y2K failure, contractual obligations and duties, the type of research conducted and its dependence on computer hardware and software. It is impossible to decide who would be liable for a Y2K-related failure, in the absence of a clear set of facts. In other words, we cannot determine who is responsible for damages related to Y2K failure before they occur. Tanya Steinberg
|
|
   
| |||||
| | | | | |