Email - sending - proof of sending/receipt - paranoid aspect

[footnote]

This is not to do with ticking a read receipt box on your email - unfortunately my free email service doesn't have that.

I know there's a law on sending letters via real post/snail mail - something along the lines of if the person says they sent it then that's it, the law accepts they did send it unless the intended recipient can prove otherwise.

Is there something like this for email?

Paranoia - I often think people pretend they haven't received my email and usually this doesn't really matter. I get them on the phone and send it again while talking to them etc etc

A couple of times lately though, I sent people emails when they were on the phone and they said they hadn't got them.... eventually they appeared a few hours later...

To get to the point and ease my paranoid tendencies, is there any assumption in law regarding email communications - such as if proof of an email from a sent box is provided - then it is deemed sent unless the intended recipient can prove otherwise?

An example could be, my car goes in for a service I get an email from the garage about a broken electric window motor with two cost options for repair.

I email back specifying the more expensive branded item.

When I get to the garage they have put in the cheaper item because they say they didn't get my email... and then want to charge extra labour to put in the item I wanted.

This is more a general principle question rather than specific to that scenario - is there any legal precedent in law about when an email is deemed to have been sent/received?

[Matt370Z]

You can use pixel tracking in emails. This is standard fare on most advertising based emails.

If the email has been sent to the correct address, and you dont get a bounceback message it has/will be been delivered.

Has your email domain name got an association with spam etc? This could impact deliverability and it could be filtered by the email host and end up not arriving/ending up in the junk email folder. There are many blacklists accessible online to see if your domain falls within it.

Edited by Matt370Z on Thursday 26th May 14:11

[marshalla]

footnote said:

This is more a general principle question rather than specific to that scenario - is there any legal precedent in law about when an email is deemed to have been sent/received?

If anyone tries to set one, or wishes to challenge one that does exist, I'll be more than happy to give evidence about why it can't/shouldn't be done.

email relies on best effort and store and forward mechanisms. If there's a break or overload anywhere in the chain it can cause delays of up to several days - and the system is designed that way.

b*gg*r! It seems the High Court may disagree with me : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/10/lawsuit_st... (although this is specific to documents involved in a case - and has been incorporated into the Civil Procedure Rules : https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/... )

Edited by marshalla on Thursday 26th May 14:12

[footnote]

That sounds interesting on the whys and why nots...

If I had a scenario where someone was delaying paying me for work and for example, I emailed saying I'd expect payment or the goods returned within 7 days.

It's a consummable item which he hasn't started using yet.

I don't receive payment and I contact on day 8 and ask are you sending the good back.

He says, I didn't get your email, I've used half the goods but I won't be able to pay until it's all used - that kind of thing.

Okay, I'll probably get payment eventually, but basically I'd rather have had the goods back unused.

It's not going to happen/help me in this example but for the future, is there any legal assumption that governs email communications?

[TooMany2cvs]

Matt370Z said:

You can use pixel tracking in emails. This is standard fare on most advertising based emails.

Which is fine so long as the recipient has HTML turned on and loads embedded images. Not everybody does.

Matt370Z said:

If the email has been sent to the correct address, and you dont get a bounceback message it has/will be been delivered.

Miles from being foolproof. Many email servers silently bin anything they believe is spam, for a start. And some of those have VERY tenuous definitions...

There is no way at all to be 100% certain that an email has arrived in the recipient's inbox. Even if it does, the user may not see it because of their own client-side automation (rules/filters) or their own spam protection.

[Slidingpillar]

You can request a 'read' and 'delivered' email receipt. However, the lack of a receipt does not prove the message never got there, as many people have them disabled, me for one. Some corporate systems turn off receipts globally too.

Outlook does grant the request facility, but requesting it is not that obvious. My webmail doesn't though and I suspect this is the norm.

[Jasandjules]

marshalla said:

If anyone tries to set one, or wishes to challenge one that does exist, I'll be more than happy to give evidence about why it can't/shouldn't be done.

email relies on best effort and store and forward mechanisms. If there's a break or overload anywhere in the chain it can cause delays of up to several days - and the system is designed that way.

b*gg*r! It seems the High Court may disagree with me : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/10/lawsuit_st... (although this is specific to documents involved in a case - and has been incorporated into the Civil Procedure Rules : https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/... )

Edited by marshalla on Thursday 26th May 14:12

No the CPR means it is acceptable to lodge a claim by email or to file documents by email.

That is a different question to whether or not an email sent is deemed delivered - though I do note that the Courts send an automated reply email....

[Arnold Cunningham]

Agreed - but pretty handy when it works.
I use this one.

TooMany2cvs said:

Miles from being foolproof. Many email servers silently bin anything they believe is spam, for a start. And some of those have VERY tenuous definitions...

There is no way at all to be 100% certain that an email has arrived in the recipient's inbox. Even if it does, the user may not see it because of their own client-side automation (rules/filters) or their own spam protection.

[bladebloke]

footnote said:

I know there's a law on sending letters via real post/snail mail - something along the lines of if the person says they sent it then that's it, the law accepts they did send it unless the intended recipient can prove otherwise.

I can't answer your specific question but in case it helps for perspective, I think you're probably referring the to the "postal rule" in contract law here. And if so, it's not as wide as you think. it only applies to a contractual acceptance that was posted but might not have arrived, the logic behind it being that the person who made the offer would be able to make enquiries if he didn't receive an acceptance of it when he might expect to.

I am not aware of any general rule that says 'if posted, deemed received'. And certainly not one where if somebody "says" they posted it, it's deemed received.

It's common for (sophisticated) contracts to have provisions along the lines of 'if you can prove you posted it correctly addressed, it's deemed received' but note that the burden of proof there falls on the poster. And of course it's no general rule, just specific to the contracting parties.

[bitchstewie]

You don't want to rely on email for anything where proof is needed.

You should explore "secure messaging" systems where an email may be sent saying "you have a message" but when you click the link in the email you have to login to read the message, and the act of logging in is the "proof" that the message has been read/received.

Of course when I use the word proof I don't know how that would hold up in a court of law, but email by itself isn't a guaranteed delivery mechanism and receiving or not receiving a read-receipt means absolutely nothing.

[Jasandjules]

bladebloke said:

I am not aware of any general rule that says 'if posted, deemed received'. And certainly not one where if somebody "says" they posted it, it's deemed received.

That is in effect the postal rule.

It is a presumed delivered if posted. T+2. However it is a rebuttable presumption...

[footnote]

bladebloke said:

footnote said:

I know there's a law on sending letters via real post/snail mail - something along the lines of if the person says they sent it then that's it, the law accepts they did send it unless the intended recipient can prove otherwise.

I can't answer your specific question but in case it helps for perspective, I think you're probably referring the to the "postal rule" in contract law here. And if so, it's not as wide as you think. it only applies to a contractual acceptance that was posted but might not have arrived, the logic behind it being that the person who made the offer would be able to make enquiries if he didn't receive an acceptance of it when he might expect to.

I am not aware of any general rule that says 'if posted, deemed received'. And certainly not one where if somebody "says" they posted it, it's deemed received.

It's common for (sophisticated) contracts to have provisions along the lines of 'if you can prove you posted it correctly addressed, it's deemed received' but note that the burden of proof there falls on the poster. And of course it's no general rule, just specific to the contracting parties.

Thanks - that's what I had in mind.

So, it would seem that emails are fairly 'deniable' - saying you didn't get it throws responsibility back on to the sender in the sense that even having a read receipt and an email in the sent box counts for little in the evidential sense

[bitchstewie]

footnote said:

Thanks - that's what I had in mind.

So, it would seem that emails are fairly 'deniable' - saying you didn't get it throws responsibility back on to the sender in the sense that even having a read receipt and an email in the sent box counts for little in the evidential sense

If you're sending from (example) Gmail to Hotmail it's tricky because you don't have access to the logs without having to involve the providers which is almost certainly going to need a court order etc.

If you're in a position where you have access to the source and destination mail server logs (and possibly anything in-between) you can join together the dots pretty easily.

Working in IT you get a fair bit of "Joe says he sent me an email, why didn't I get it?" and most of the time within 30 seconds you can say "Yes you did and it was delivered to your inbox at 14.11pm" or "We bounced it because Joe use BT Internet and it came from a spammy IP address" and so on.

[hutchst]

If it's important you could close the e-mail with:

"Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail (and attachment(s))"

and if you dont get acknowledgement, send another "Please confirm that you received my e-mail yesterday", etc...

If you never get the reply you want, then print a copy of the original e-mail and stick it in an envelope and keep the receipt from the post office.

[bladebloke]

Jasandjules said:

bladebloke said:

I am not aware of any general rule that says 'if posted, deemed received'. And certainly not one where if somebody "says" they posted it, it's deemed received.

That is in effect the postal rule.

It is a presumed delivered if posted. T+2. However it is a rebuttable presumption...

Yes, but as my post said, the postal rule does not have general application. It only applies to contractual acceptances.

[bladebloke]

footnote said:

Thanks - that's what I had in mind.

So, it would seem that emails are fairly 'deniable' - saying you didn't get it throws responsibility back on to the sender in the sense that even having a read receipt and an email in the sent box counts for little in the evidential sense

Put it this way - there's a good reason why email is almost always excluded as a method of service in properly drafted contracts.

However, it is 2016 and it's accepted that email is an efficient way of communicating, and also that it's the most heavily used means, generally. If you're wondering about whether an email could be used as evidence that something had been communicated (as opposed to having facilitated service of a document where the governing agreement excluded it) then I would think that a court would take evidence of a correctly addressed email combined with a read receipt for it as good evidence. In haven't any first hand experience of the point being argued though.

[Jasandjules]

bladebloke said:

Yes, but as my post said, the postal rule does not have general application. It only applies to contractual acceptances.

Not it does not. See for example Deemed Service in the CPR 6.26.

[bladebloke]

Jasandjules said:

Not it does not. See for example Deemed Service in the CPR 6.26.

Although I realise that this may come across as a but pedantic (for which I apologise), I said that as far as I know, there is no rule of general application that says 'if posted, deemed delivered' and I maintain that this is the case. You point to another specific example which applies to service of documents in court proceedings - this does not make for general application. We haven't exhausted the list of specific examples either - e.g. s196 Law of Property Act 1925, which applies to notices served pursuant to that act.

If I write a letter to you that isn't affected by specific provisions/rules of law (e.g. contractual acceptances from Adams v Lindsell) then I don't believe there is anything to say it's deemed delivered.