[Enigma]

I once saw a case in FL that states once you drop mail in the US Post Office system it is considered received 5 days later, even if it was not received.

I know other jurisdictions have it too. Any one have cite?

[drivel]

common law mailbox rule. Probably in most local rules of civil procedure also.

[roybean]

I have case law on the mailbox in that section of tjhis site.

[hannah]

Did a search on LN and there are numerous cases about mailbox rule.

Florida rules state:

Rule 1.080(b) Fla.R.Civ.P

Service; How Made. When service is required or permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney, service shall be made upon the attorney unless service upon the party is ordered by the court. Service on the attorney or party shall be made by delivering a copy or mailing it to the attorney or the party at the last known address or, if no address is known, by leaving it with the clerk of the court. Service by mail shall be complete upon mailing. Delivery of a copy within this rule shall be complete upon: (1) handing it to the attorney or to the party, (2) leaving it at the attorney’s or party’s office with a clerk or other person in charge thereof, (3) if there is no one in charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place therein, (4) if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the person’s usual place of abode with some person of his or her family above 15 years of age and informing such person of the contents, or (5) transmitting it by facsimile to the attorney’s or party’s office with a cover sheet containing the sender’s name, firm, address, telephone number, and facsimile number, and the number of pages transmitted. When service is made by facsimile, a copy shall also be served by any other method permitted by this rule. Facsimile service occurs when transmission is complete. Service by delivery after 5:00 p.m. shall be deemed to have been made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

In Florida there is also a mailbox rule for prisoners that states that service is complete upon handing the service to a prison employee to mail.

Wikipedia states:

The mailbox rule or the postal acceptance rule is a term of common law contracts which determines the timing of acceptance of an offer when mail is contemplated as the medium of acceptance. The general principle is that a contract is formed when acceptance is actually communicated to the offeror. The mailbox rule is an exception to the general principle. The mailbox rule provides that the contract is formed when the letter of acceptance is placed in the mailbox.

The leading case in the mailbox rule is Henthorn v. Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 77 which was based in part on the earlier case of Adams v. Lindsell (1818) B & Ald 681.

The mailbox rule applies only to acceptance; other letters do not take effect until the letter is delivered, as in Stevenson v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346. The implication of this is that it is possible for a letter of acceptance to be posted after a letter of revocation of the offer has been posted but before it is delivered, and acceptance will be complete at the time that the letter of acceptance was posted.

For example, suppose A makes an offer to B on January 1; A then decides to revoke the offer on January 2 and puts a letter in the mail to B revoking the offer; however, B puts a letter accepting the offer in the mail on January 3, and does not receive A's revocation letter until January 4. The letter of revocation can be effective only when received, that is January 4. However, the contract was formed on January 3 when the letter of acceptance was posted. It is too late to revoke the offer.

Suppose that A makes an offer to B on January 1, and initially B intends to reject the offer on January 2 by putting a letter in the mail to A rejecting the offer. However, the next day B changes his mind and sends a fax to A accepting the offer. In this situation, whichever communication A receives first will govern.

Under the mailbox rule, performance is a means of acceptance. If A orders 1000 blue coathangers and B ships them out, that shipment is considered to be a conveyance of acceptance of A's offer to buy the coathangers. Defective performance is also an acceptance, unless accompanied by an explanation. For example, if A orders 1000 blue coathangers, and B mistakenly ships 1000 red coathangers, this is still an acceptance of the contract. However, if B ships the red coathangers with a note that they sent these because they had run out of blue coathangers, this is not an acceptance, but rather an accommodation, which is a form of counter-offer.

An interesting implication of the operation of the mailbox rule is that as acceptance is complete once the letter of acceptance is posted, it makes no difference whether the offeror actually receives the letter. This was demonstrated in Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344. If a letter of acceptance were to be lost, acceptance has still taken place. An exception to this would be if the offeree knows or has reason to know that the letter of acceptance never reached the offeror. For example, if A brings a letter of acceptance to the local post office and A sees the post office burn down, there is no acceptance.

The mailbox rule does not apply to instantaneous forms of communications. For example in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327, the Court held that the mailbox rule did not apply to an acceptance by telex as the Court regarded it as an instantaneous form of communication. The general principle that acceptance takes place when communicated applies to instantaneous forms of communication. Courts have similarly held that the mailbox rule does not apply to acceptances by telephone or fax.

The courts are yet to decide whether e-mail should be regarded as an instantaneous form of communication. If the offeree were to convey acceptance by commercially unreasonable means - by cross-country pony express, for example - the acceptance would not be effective until it had actually been received.

A letter is regarded as "posted" only when it is in the possession of the Post Office; this was established in the case of Re London & Northern Bank [1900] 1 Ch 220. A letter of acceptance is not considered "posted" if it is handed to an agent to deliver, such as a courier.

The mailbox rule does not apply to option contracts or irrevocable offers where acceptance is still effective only upon receipt. This is because the offeree no longer needs protection against subsequently mailed.

The IRS says:

Section 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code provides two rules for the timely filing of required tax documents:

(i) Section 7502(a) provides that if a document is "delivered by United States mail" to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) after the due date, the document shall be deemed to have been filed on "the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover" of the mailing envelope. 26 U.S.C. 7502(a)(1).

(ii) Section 7502(c)(1) provides that, if a tax document is "sent by United States registered mail," the document shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of registration. 26 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1)(B). Section 7502(c)(1) further provides that the receipt for registration is "prima facie evidence" that the document was delivered to the IRS. 26 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to Section 7502(c)(2), the IRS has promulgated similar rules for documents sent by certified mail. See 26 C.F.R. 301.7502-1(c)(2).

What is the scenario of you needing the case cite? Perhaps if I knew that I could add in a few more keywords to my search. The only case concerning a debt that comes up with the notation of "five days" is the Mahon case I have attached. Is this what you were needing?

I have also attached the Haag criminal case which is about mailings for prisoners but does come up under the search term "five days" and is in Florida.

[Enigma]

Hannah thanks for the cases and Roy I'll look at the case law section.

What I am looking for is a (the) case that states that when the CA mailed the dunning letter it was presumed to have been received 5 days after placing in the mail box.

I need to use it against a CA.

[direred]

Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County

"The district court did not err in granting the Credit Bureau's summary judgment motion without hearing oral argument. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires only that a Validation of Debt Notice be sent to a debtor, not that the notice be received. The evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that the Credit Bureau sent the required Notice to the Mahons. Under the common law Mailbox Rule, the Notice was presumed received shortly after it was mailed. The Mahons failed to request verification of the debt within thirty days following their receipt of the Notice, but when the Credit Bureau received their tardy request, it promptly verified the debt anyway, just as the statute would have required had the Mahons made a timely request."

[hannah]

Here are a few more cases that involve the mailbox rule and debt collection but none are specific as to receiving in five days. Perhaps some of the cases cited in these cases will have what you are looking for.

I am going shopping now and will look again later.

[Enigma]

Originally Posted by direred

Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County

"The district court did not err in granting the Credit Bureau's summary judgment motion without hearing oral argument. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires only that a Validation of Debt Notice be sent to a debtor, not that the notice be received. The evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that the Credit Bureau sent the required Notice to the Mahons. Under the common law Mailbox Rule, the Notice was presumed received shortly after it was mailed. The Mahons failed to request verification of the debt within thirty days following their receipt of the Notice, but when the Credit Bureau received their tardy request, it promptly verified the debt anyway, just as the statute would have required had the Mahons made a timely request."

Thats the one. The FDCPA says a dispute to be by mail, not that they received it. Time to turn the tables on them.

Thanks to Hannah, I'll add your to the fodder to.

[direred]

Hannah actually cited Mahon before I did, but when you posted the question, I was pretty sure that was the case you meant.

[Enigma]

Originally Posted by direred

Hannah actually cited Mahon before I did, but when you posted the question, I was pretty sure that was the case you meant.

Yes she did and I owe Hannah a huge apology. I am sorry Hannah, I did not read it carefully enough.

I'll retire to the couch now...

[hannah]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Yes she did and I owe Hannah a huge apology. I am sorry Hannah, I did not read it carefully enough.

I'll retire to the couch now...

Hey now, as long as the info gets out there and it's what you need, that is all that matters...