How enforceable is this? I like the idea and I remember reading something (possibly written by pg) about binding text messages, but if I wanted to actually use this how would I convince someone intent on me signing an NDA.
I hope I'm not over-analyzing something potentially made in jest, but I'm fascinated on what it takes to make your word legally binding.
I think the point is to communicate "I would prefer an agreement enforced by social norms to one enforced by legal norms here." This is similar to my all-purpose dodge: "My professional discretion is free. If you want a formal contract I will be happy to execute it along with my formal invoice."
The problem being that the parties to a pinky swear are released from their obligations under that agreement in the presence of a double-dog dare. There is a reason why there are legal norms.
IANAL, but standing alone, with no exchange of 'consideration', and only signed/stated by one party, it likely doesn't create much of a legal obligation.
Combined with other communication - perhaps as one of a pair of 'pinky-swears', each stating one party's offering in return for the others' - it might contribute part of a larger commitment. After all, a contract doesn't have to be written - it's just wise to do so for the sake of clarity.
The exercise of writing down a mutual understanding, even if it's not a legally strong contract, can still be useful in reducing the risk of misunderstandings.
> IANAL, but standing alone, with no exchange of 'consideration', and only signed/stated by one party, it likely doesn't create much of a legal obligation.
That's not always the case. For example: "The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents one party from withdrawing a promise made to a second party if the latter has reasonably relied on that promise." (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel.)
I hope I'm not over-analyzing something potentially made in jest, but I'm fascinated on what it takes to make your word legally binding.