Anyone not directly involved in the case is a third party. If you chose to include your child (a third party) on the news, you are assuming responsibility if you ar ecaught breaking the clause. It is not like you are allowed to play dumb when you break a law and get away with it...
Confidential agreements are very detailed and crafted to cover all angles of the subject, I believe it is very fair for the father to be sued when his daughter clearly broke the confidential clause that the father legally signed, these contracts need to be held as strictly as possible to maintain their integrity.
The problem was that a main party (the father) had violated the confidentiality clause by telling his daughter. His daughter's post on Facebook confirmed this violation. A third party cannot break the clause unless a primary party broke it to begin with. So yes, the judgment in these kinds of circumstances is fair.
Yes, the verdict in the "SUCK IT" Facebook post was fair. When the parents told their daughter about the outcome, they should also have told her that there was a confidentiality agreement. They didn't have to tell her what happened, and so they took on the responsibility when they did so.
In the case mentioned, the daughter's facebook post violated the confidentiality clause of the settlement that her father had just mediated with his employer. Although she was a third party, her knowledge of the terms of the settlement were a clear indication that her father had violated the confidentiality agreement by telling her. When she posted it on facebook, they had all the proof they needed.
Girl costs father $80,000 with 'SUCK IT' Facebook post It is not fair for contracts to be considered broken when third parties, such as a person's child, break the confidentiality clauses in those agreements. Only because I really dont think these kids are reading any contracts online before they do these things they are not there yet.
I do not believe contracts should be considered broken when third parties, such as a person's child, break the confidentiality clauses. Confidentiality is between two entities that control that confidentiality, not everyone both parties know. I think this was a tricky clause that sought not to pay the awards set forth and it shouldn't be allowed.