Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang
63 Va. Cir. 409 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The mailbox rule, which makes contract acceptance effective upon dispatch, applies to acceptances sent by facsimile. However, the party asserting the acceptance bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the facsimile was actually transmitted.
Facts:
- Trinity Homes, L.L.C., and Seabring Development, L.L.C. (represented by agent Damon Stewart) negotiated an agreement to purchase real estate from Ching Seng Fang and Carol S. Fang (represented by agent T. H. Nicholson, III).
- Stewart alleges he initialed the agreement and placed it in his facsimile machine to send to Nicholson as an acceptance of the Fangs' offer.
- Stewart dialed Nicholson's number, pushed the start button, and then left on an errand without confirming that the transmission was successful.
- The facsimile machine used by Stewart was an older model that did not provide any form of verification or confirmation that a transmission was sent or received.
- No phone records or other evidence existed to corroborate Stewart's claim that the facsimile transmission was sent.
- Shortly after the time of the alleged transmission, Nicholson telephoned Stewart to inform him that the Fangs had decided not to sell the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Trinity Homes, L.L.C., and Seabring Development, L.L.C. filed a complaint against Ching Seng Fang and Carol S. Fang in a Virginia trial court.
- The case was submitted to the court for a final decision based on an 'Agreed Stipulations for Trial,' where both parties agreed on the key facts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the mailbox rule apply to a contract acceptance sent by a facsimile machine, and if so, is the acceptance effective if the sender cannot provide any verification that the facsimile was actually transmitted?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Marc Jacobson
Yes, the mailbox rule applies to facsimile transmissions, but no, the acceptance is not effective if the sender fails to meet their burden of proving that the transmission was actually dispatched. The court determined that facsimile transmission, like telegraphs, can be a one-way form of communication to which the mailbox rule (acceptance effective upon dispatch) should apply. This contrasts with substantially instantaneous two-way communications like a telephone call, where acceptance is effective upon receipt. However, the applicability of the rule is conditioned on the factual question of whether dispatch occurred. Citing Osprey, L.L.C. v. Kelly-Moore Paint Co., the court noted that proof of transmission, such as a fax log or phone records, is crucial. In this case, Stewart could not provide any verification that the fax was transmitted, and he could not even state with certainty that it went through. Therefore, Trinity Homes failed to meet its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the acceptance was actually dispatched, and no contract was formed.
Analysis:
This trial court opinion extends the traditional mailbox rule of contract law to the then-modern technology of facsimile transmissions. The decision's significance lies in its clear distinction between the legal applicability of the rule and the factual burden of proof required to invoke it. By conditioning the rule's protection on the sender's ability to provide objective evidence of dispatch, the court highlights the evidentiary risks of using older or unreliable communication technologies that lack automatic verification. This reasoning provides a framework for analyzing contract formation issues involving other forms of one-way electronic communication, emphasizing that the party claiming contract formation must be able to prove it with more than just a self-serving statement.
