Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
#1
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 332
Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
Hello to everyone,
I have been in Email communication with the real estate agent instead of mail correspondence.
For example the agent declares his consent to change the fixed term lease to a periodic lease with an Email. And many other occasions…
My question is: could these Email communications be taken into consideration by court if any dispute arises in the future? Can I rely them the way people rely on writing?
Note that all these Emails come from the formal Email of that real state agency.
Thank you in advance.
I have been in Email communication with the real estate agent instead of mail correspondence.
For example the agent declares his consent to change the fixed term lease to a periodic lease with an Email. And many other occasions…
My question is: could these Email communications be taken into consideration by court if any dispute arises in the future? Can I rely them the way people rely on writing?
Note that all these Emails come from the formal Email of that real state agency.
Thank you in advance.
#2
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,289
Re: Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
Yes, you can rely on them.
#4
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 924
Re: Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
E-mail is just as legally binding as the written word these days, press send is the equivalent to the old "postal rules".
#6
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,048
Re: Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
I'd print them out and file them away as you would do with a letter.
Nothing worse than relying on an email which you can't find later due to accidental deletion.
Nothing worse than relying on an email which you can't find later due to accidental deletion.
#8
Re: Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
Do any of the posters here have legal backgrounds? It strikes me that it's not terribly difficult to manufacture an e-mail after the fact and claim it to be original (including all the correct headers and time/date stamps). To determine if the e-mail is real or not would require looking into the logs of the mail servers form the sending party, assuming they are available. I'm wondering just how easy it would be to argue this point in a court of law.
When you send a physical letter, you can send it registered delivery or signed for to provide an audit trail of proof that it was delivered. With e-mail, you can do the same but you'd have to digitally sign the outbound e-mail and the vast majority of e-mail is not digitally signed.
I don't claim to know the definitive answer to the OP question but from my point of view, I'd be suspicious of accepting that an e-mail carries the same weight as physical correspondance. Certainly, any time I've received legal advice, it's always been to send registered letters.
- CDM
When you send a physical letter, you can send it registered delivery or signed for to provide an audit trail of proof that it was delivered. With e-mail, you can do the same but you'd have to digitally sign the outbound e-mail and the vast majority of e-mail is not digitally signed.
I don't claim to know the definitive answer to the OP question but from my point of view, I'd be suspicious of accepting that an e-mail carries the same weight as physical correspondance. Certainly, any time I've received legal advice, it's always been to send registered letters.
- CDM
#9
Account Closed
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,708
Re: Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
Do any of the posters here have legal backgrounds? It strikes me that it's not terribly difficult to manufacture an e-mail after the fact and claim it to be original (including all the correct headers and time/date stamps). To determine if the e-mail is real or not would require looking into the logs of the mail servers form the sending party, assuming they are available. I'm wondering just how easy it would be to argue this point in a court of law.
When you send a physical letter, you can send it registered delivery or signed for to provide an audit trail of proof that it was delivered. With e-mail, you can do the same but you'd have to digitally sign the outbound e-mail and the vast majority of e-mail is not digitally signed.
I don't claim to know the definitive answer to the OP question but from my point of view, I'd be suspicious of accepting that an e-mail carries the same weight as physical correspondance. Certainly, any time I've received legal advice, it's always been to send registered letters.
- CDM
When you send a physical letter, you can send it registered delivery or signed for to provide an audit trail of proof that it was delivered. With e-mail, you can do the same but you'd have to digitally sign the outbound e-mail and the vast majority of e-mail is not digitally signed.
I don't claim to know the definitive answer to the OP question but from my point of view, I'd be suspicious of accepting that an e-mail carries the same weight as physical correspondance. Certainly, any time I've received legal advice, it's always been to send registered letters.
- CDM
#10
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 332
Re: Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
Thank you all for sharing your info
#11
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto (the big city in Canada, not the town in New South Wales!)
Posts: 91
Re: Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
Not exactly. I'm in IT Security, and have done some work on the legality of e-mail.
For an e-mail to be non-repudiated and have as much force as a registered letter, you need at a "minimum" to have the headers (the details that are normally hidden that shows the servers and IP addresses where the e-mails originated and travelled to get to you).
But to be ironclad in a court of law, without getting into the technical specifics, digital signatures and certificates (with hashes), issued by a trusted third party such as Verisign, also have to be used on both ends.
Anything short of the above, and someone may be able to argue or prove in court that they never actually sent it or the message was altered after the fact.
For the OP, if it's a real estate deal, even if the above is not adhered to, normally the real and final real estate contract should be e-mailed as a PDF, printed, hand-signed, and scanned back in (as a PDF) to be e-mailed back. Then the hand written signature that is on the scan is as much binding as normal correspondence sent by registered snail mail or fax.
Disclaimer: None of the above is intended to be legal advice
For an e-mail to be non-repudiated and have as much force as a registered letter, you need at a "minimum" to have the headers (the details that are normally hidden that shows the servers and IP addresses where the e-mails originated and travelled to get to you).
But to be ironclad in a court of law, without getting into the technical specifics, digital signatures and certificates (with hashes), issued by a trusted third party such as Verisign, also have to be used on both ends.
Anything short of the above, and someone may be able to argue or prove in court that they never actually sent it or the message was altered after the fact.
For the OP, if it's a real estate deal, even if the above is not adhered to, normally the real and final real estate contract should be e-mailed as a PDF, printed, hand-signed, and scanned back in (as a PDF) to be e-mailed back. Then the hand written signature that is on the scan is as much binding as normal correspondence sent by registered snail mail or fax.
Disclaimer: None of the above is intended to be legal advice
Last edited by torcraw; May 23rd 2009 at 12:09 am.
#12
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 332
Re: Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
Not exactly. I'm in IT Security, and have done some work on the legality of e-mail.
For an e-mail to be non-repudiated and have as much force as a registered letter, you need at a "minimum" to have the headers (the details that are normally hidden that shows the servers and IP addresses where the e-mails originated and travelled to get to you).
But to be ironclad in a court of law, without getting into the technical specifics, digital signatures and certificates (with hashes), issued by a trusted third party such as Verisign, also have to be used on both ends.
Anything short of the above, and someone may be able to argue or prove in court that they never actually sent it or the message was altered after the fact.
For the OP, if it's a real estate deal, even if the above is not adhered to, normally the real and final real estate contract should be e-mailed as a PDF, printed, hand-signed, and scanned back in (as a PDF) to be e-mailed back. Then the hand written signature that is on the scan is as much binding as normal correspondence sent by registered snail mail or fax.
Disclaimer: None of the above is intended to be legal advice
For an e-mail to be non-repudiated and have as much force as a registered letter, you need at a "minimum" to have the headers (the details that are normally hidden that shows the servers and IP addresses where the e-mails originated and travelled to get to you).
But to be ironclad in a court of law, without getting into the technical specifics, digital signatures and certificates (with hashes), issued by a trusted third party such as Verisign, also have to be used on both ends.
Anything short of the above, and someone may be able to argue or prove in court that they never actually sent it or the message was altered after the fact.
For the OP, if it's a real estate deal, even if the above is not adhered to, normally the real and final real estate contract should be e-mailed as a PDF, printed, hand-signed, and scanned back in (as a PDF) to be e-mailed back. Then the hand written signature that is on the scan is as much binding as normal correspondence sent by registered snail mail or fax.
Disclaimer: None of the above is intended to be legal advice
#13
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
Do any of the posters here have legal backgrounds? It strikes me that it's not terribly difficult to manufacture an e-mail after the fact and claim it to be original (including all the correct headers and time/date stamps). To determine if the e-mail is real or not would require looking into the logs of the mail servers form the sending party, assuming they are available. I'm wondering just how easy it would be to argue this point in a court of law.
When you send a physical letter, you can send it registered delivery or signed for to provide an audit trail of proof that it was delivered. With e-mail, you can do the same but you'd have to digitally sign the outbound e-mail and the vast majority of e-mail is not digitally signed.
I don't claim to know the definitive answer to the OP question but from my point of view, I'd be suspicious of accepting that an e-mail carries the same weight as physical correspondance. Certainly, any time I've received legal advice, it's always been to send registered letters.
- CDM
When you send a physical letter, you can send it registered delivery or signed for to provide an audit trail of proof that it was delivered. With e-mail, you can do the same but you'd have to digitally sign the outbound e-mail and the vast majority of e-mail is not digitally signed.
I don't claim to know the definitive answer to the OP question but from my point of view, I'd be suspicious of accepting that an e-mail carries the same weight as physical correspondance. Certainly, any time I've received legal advice, it's always been to send registered letters.
- CDM
I would think it's much easier for Joe Public to fake a physical letter than an email nowadays.
#14
Re: Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
This would tend to suggest that a digitally signed email is more secure as a signed for service in mail only says a letter was transferred and has no knowledge of the content of that letter.
I would think it's much easier for Joe Public to fake a physical letter than an email nowadays.
I would think it's much easier for Joe Public to fake a physical letter than an email nowadays.
My point originally being that sending a regular (not digitally signed) e-mail message may not necessarily be considered proof of correspondance in a court of law because it's so relatively easy to duplicate or modify (or fabricate even for the benefit of showing proof where non exists).
Be it physical paper post or electronic e-mail, the point is that some sort of unique signature would need to be present as well as the knowledge that the message had not been altered or tampered with en route between sender and recipient.
The blanket statement that e-mail is just as good as regular post simple doesn't hold up to scrutiny - and I'm not even a lawyer. It may be accepted in certain circumstances but when push comes to shove, I doubt you'd have a leg to stand on.
- CDM
#15
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: Are Email communications the same with mail correspondence?
You'd have to fake the signature too but I essentially agree with you in that it's probably more difficult to circumvent digital proof than conventional physical proof.
My point originally being that sending a regular (not digitally signed) e-mail message may not necessarily be considered proof of correspondance in a court of law because it's so relatively easy to duplicate or modify (or fabricate even for the benefit of showing proof where non exists).
Be it physical paper post or electronic e-mail, the point is that some sort of unique signature would need to be present as well as the knowledge that the message had not been altered or tampered with en route between sender and recipient.
The blanket statement that e-mail is just as good as regular post simple doesn't hold up to scrutiny - and I'm not even a lawyer. It may be accepted in certain circumstances but when push comes to shove, I doubt you'd have a leg to stand on.
- CDM
My point originally being that sending a regular (not digitally signed) e-mail message may not necessarily be considered proof of correspondance in a court of law because it's so relatively easy to duplicate or modify (or fabricate even for the benefit of showing proof where non exists).
Be it physical paper post or electronic e-mail, the point is that some sort of unique signature would need to be present as well as the knowledge that the message had not been altered or tampered with en route between sender and recipient.
The blanket statement that e-mail is just as good as regular post simple doesn't hold up to scrutiny - and I'm not even a lawyer. It may be accepted in certain circumstances but when push comes to shove, I doubt you'd have a leg to stand on.
- CDM