CAN FAX = CERTIFIED MAIL TO PROVE DELIVERY?
Jay Respler
Will a court accept a fax transmission as proof of sending a notice the
same as they accept a certified letter?
Fax is faster, surer, lower cost. I have had certified letters get lost.
With fax, there is a transmission report to prove the fax was sent,
and the phone bill proves the fax was sent to a particular fax number.
Have there been any court rulings on this?
Thanks.
William Marvin
In <6a2m1a$q...@panix3.panix.com>, on 01/20/98
>Will a court accept a fax transmission as proof of sending a notice the
>same as they accept a certified letter?
What does the court rule which requires a certain document to be faxed
say? Unless it allows facsimile transmission, a fax does not meet the
rule's requirement.
>Fax is faster, surer, lower cost. I have had certified letters get lost.
>With fax, there is a transmission report to prove the fax was sent, and
>the phone bill proves the fax was sent to a particular fax number.
That doesn't mean anything. THe purpose of certified mail service is
(1) to make sure, because of the reciept, that it was delivered, and (2)
to underline that it is an important document. A transmission report
doesn't exclude the possibility that the paper jammed, or it was received
in memory and then erased before printing, or that a mail room clerk
tossed it in the trash.
But in any event, court rules about service should be followed
precisely.
+----------------------------------------------+
|--William D. Marvin, Esq. ++ wdm...@ibm.net--|
|---------Abington, PA (215) 881-9488---------|
|-visit Philadelphia Trial Lawyers on the Web -|
+---------- http://philatla.org ---------------+
Here2Fore
Only if the recipient has aggreed, IN ADVANCE, that fax service with proof
of delivery will be the equivalent of certified mail. I suppose if he had
agreed, you would not be writing this question.
In other words, NO! How can you prove where the fax machine was located, or
that it had paper in it, or that it accurately reproduced every letter you
sent?
Jay Respler wrote in message <6a2m1a$q...@panix3.panix.com>...
Daniel R. Reitman
On 20 Jan 1998 12:14:18 -0500, jres...@injersey.com (Jay Respler)
wrote:
>Will a court accept a fax transmission as proof of sending a notice the
>same as they accept a certified letter?
>Fax is faster, surer, lower cost. I have had certified letters get lost.
>With fax, there is a transmission report to prove the fax was sent,
>and the phone bill proves the fax was sent to a particular fax number.
>Have there been any court rulings on this?
In Oregon, the rules expressly allow fax as a means of general service
during the course of litigation, but not for service of summons and
complaint. The rules are also carefully drawn to require any mail in
some circumstances and certain forms of mail in others. For example,
service of summons and complaint may be achieved by sending both first
class and registered, certified, or express mail, so long as the
defendant signs the return receipt. Fax would not do.
Daniel Reitman
Daniel R. Reitman
On 23 Jan 1998 17:17:45 -0500, drei...@teleport.com (Daniel R.
Reitman) wrote:
>In Oregon, the rules expressly allow fax as a means of general service
>during the course of litigation, but not for service of summons and
>complaint. The rules are also carefully drawn to require any mail in
>some circumstances and certain forms of mail in others. For example,
>service of summons and complaint may be achieved by sending both first
>class and registered, certified, or express mail, so long as the
>defendant signs the return receipt. Fax would not do.
Whoops. I forgot to point out that the current construction of
Oregon's catch-all rule, allowing any constitutional means of service,
probably won't consider fax sufficient. In Lake Oswego Review v.
Steinkamp (the case codified in the mailing rule I described above),
the court found the actual signature on the return receipt
significant. In another case (which I can't recall offhand), mailing
the summons to the defendant's mother was not sufficient, because you
couldn't guarantee the defendant would get it.
Daniel Reitman
pcavey
Jay Respler <jres...@injersey.com> wrote in article
<6a2m1a$q...@panix3.panix.com>...
>
> Will a court accept a fax transmission as proof of sending a notice the
> same as they accept a certified letter?
>
The replies so far have kind of missed the point of this original question.
The question is a very good techno-evidence question. Assume that the
local rules permit service by fax of specific document. Assume that the
opponent's time to do something runs from service. Assume the opponent
does not do the thing and claims there was never service. Assume also
that, having anticipated that the opponent would deny service, the sender
printed and saved the fax transmission report which shows the telephone
number (which is the same as the opponent's), the number of pages (one more
than the document purportedly served to account for the fax cover sheet),
the time of transmission, and a notation that the transmission was "OK"
Has anyone ever litigated the admissibility of a fax transmission report as
evidence of the fact of transmission or specific contents of other
documents? Can fax transmission reports be "forged?" Is the sender
entitled to discovery of the receiver's machine to establish receipt?