Developer In Trouble!

[dave111223]

Might be worth checking here to see if his website got archived while your stuff was posted on it:

http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

or

http://waybackmachine.org/

Edited February 20, 2011 by dave111223

[gregb]

Rubbish! Emails are inadmissible as evidence as is any unsigned or unwitnessed document.

I look forward to seeing you in Court one day then if your only defence is that they are NOT admissible, when in reality they are . . . if you know anything about Law you would know you are wrong.

As stated before, any email correspondence IS admissible under the Law here in Thailand as well as UK/USA but as with ALL evidence, is is up to the presiding Judge to determine what is and is not admissible. I know, I've been involved peripherally in cases where this has happened here in Thailand.

The emails in question would have to be traced/tracked by a certified legal body (the Police basically or a Forensics Lab) and if the information obtained is relevant to the case they can be admitted in to Court.

Just for you HD > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_evidence - I know it's relating to US law specifically, but the same applies here in Thailand.

(Reason for edit: add link)

I would imagine a Thai judge might elect to accept an email into evidence in exceptional circumstances, but only if it was obtained from the ISP directly. A copy of the email is toilet paper. I could easily fake any header I wanted on an email. I could also change the text of the message. It is essentially meaningless.

Since the OP said the email came from gmail, that means he would have to get Google to release the emails directly to the court. That means he would require a US court order. That is a long, lengthy, and expensive process when the litigation is being done in Thailand. And in the end, there is no guarantee at all that the Thai judge will admit it into evidence.

All the defendant has to say is that his password was compromised on his account, and suddenly there is doubt as to whether he really sent the emails or not. In the West, this may not be accepted as an excuse. In Thailand however, there is very little precedent for accepting anything that doesn't bear a written signature, so even the slightest hint that something might be contested will likely be enough to get it thrown out.

I would happily face you in a Thai court any day if all you had were some emails. Verbal contracts, emails and other documents without a signature do not as a rule represent valid evidence in Thailand. Even witness testimony is not necessarily accepted in civil cases. This is not the US. Thai judges want to see something written down and signed. That is what they give weight to.

Consult a lawyer for sure, but also be aware that a lawyer is as likely as not to simply tell you what you want to hear, rather than telling you the truth. They get no money by being honest. This will be a hard road if it ever goes to court and there is nothing with a signature cancelling the original contract, and no factual evidence (other than emails) showing that Mr. X did in fact actively inhibit the contract from proceeding. Mr. X simply needs to say that someone fabricated the emails.

Without a signature, the burden of proof is on the OP to prove nobody faked those emails. Having written parts of the original sendmail application 20 year ago, and being very familiar with the SMTP protocol, I can tell you that is not an easy task. Faking email headers is next to trivial. He will need some other corroborating, written evidence to support his position.

It isn't a fight I would willingly take on for a 4 million baht contract.

The slander suit, is an entirely different proceeding, and unrelated to the OP's performance on the building contract. He's got a much stronger case there. The best advice I have is to tell him to settle the build contract however he has to, and then press defamation charges against Mr. X, hoping the damages from that suit are enough to offset whatever losses he incurred settling the building contract.

[InterestedObserver]

This will be a hard road if it ever goes to court and there is nothing with a signature cancelling the original contract, and no factual evidence (other than emails) showing that Mr. X did in fact actively inhibit the contract from proceeding. Mr. X simply needs to say that someone fabricated the emails.

Mr. X reportedly made a separate deal with the construction contractor in contravention of the OP's contract. Mr. X is now having trouble with the construction contractor after offering only 50% payment. I'm sure the Thai contractor will be more than happy to testify in court.

Edited February 20, 2011 by InterestedObserver

[HeavyDrinker]

I too would be happy to meet you in ANY court if all yo had on me were emails and verbal contracts.

Unless you could prove without fail that I had written them (and I'd like to see you try) they're of no value whatsoever. You could have hacked into my account and written them yourself etc.

Edited February 20, 2011 by HeavyDrinker

[olsen]

Thanks for all the comments....The email issue worries me If Mr. X really have the guts to lie in front of a judge, then I might get into trouble for real Does anyone know the penalty for lying to a Thai judge?

I also have a witness, a former employee, who was in contact with Mr. X both via email and in person. This employee can confirm that Mr. X sent him similar emails and also he witnessed the website where Mr. X showed my employees photo and told the world that since my employee worked for me he must also be a conman .

This is actually sort of ridicilous.... yesterday Mr. X emailed me again and told me he and his Thai wife just visited the police and that the police now will take action against us.

I replied him that I look forward to that, and if this really happens, I will sue his ass off for defamation and libel.

I will keep you posted

[InterestedObserver]

I, for one, would certainly like to hear Mr. X's side of the story. Don't worry about the police. If no criminal laws have been broken they will not get involved in a contract dispute, that is essentially a matter for the civil courts. Defamation and/or internet fraud, that is another matter altogether.

[Tatsujin]

They don't need to contact Gmail or any other company, they simply need to obtain the information from the local Thai ISP's that will contain all the information they would need.

With regards to saying that someone "hacked" your account as a defence once it is proven that it IS your account (by retrieving said records as above) then the onus would be on YOU to prove that it was hacked, not the OP.

I repeat, I have seen this happen here in Thailand very recently with regards to the use of emails within Court. They can, will, and are accepted provided the relevant information can be obtained from the ISP's to prove usage and ownership. In the case mentioned above, this information was used to track down the offending party directly to his rented apartment and the variety of personal and public computers that were used by him. The records found on said PC's and records from the ISP were more than enough to prove ownership and usage of the email accounts in question.

Faking an email is relatively simple on a cursory examination, but faking it in such a way that would fool modern Computer Forensics is another matter entirely. There is enough information hidden in email headers to be able to track down quite a lot with the right knowledge, time and equipment.

[Tatsujin]

I, for one, would certainly like to hear Mr. X's side of the story. Don't worry about the police. If no criminal laws have been broken they will not get involved in a contract dispute, that is essentially a matter for the civil courts. Defamation and/or internet fraud, that is another matter altogether.

Defamation IS a Criminal Offence in Thailand . . .

[olsen]

My lawyer says that it is Mr. X duty to prove that he dit NOT send these emails to me, from hiw OWN email address, I don´t need to prove the HE did not send the emails! Because the court will check my PC and my internet mail account, that proves that I DID receive these emails from Mr. X.

I dunno how I could fake those emails, unless of course I edit them before printing out....

I know that contract disputes are a civil case so I am not worried about the police turning up at my office - but as mentioned above defamation and libel is a criminal offence where the police can and will arrest the offender if I can prove it, which I can easily do with my screenshots from Mr. X´s website....So this case do not worry me .... but I would prefer just to settle this whole case and get rid of Mr. X. But he don´t care - he really is pissed off and I cannot reason with him.

I will see what happens in the near future....and keep you posted.

[pjclark1]

Yeah....but now Mr. X says he never agreed to dismissing the construction agreement....and we never signed a dismissal agreement, but I have all the emails from him stating the facts.....

Tell Mr. X the contract has been canceled by mutual consent. You have the e-mails as proof, don't you? Have nothing more to do with him. If Mr. X does not agree with this, let him sue your company. You in return will sue him for defamation.

Exactly what I´ve already told Mr. X. I can prove everything by our email correspondance! A reason why I ALWAYS deal by email to secure proof of what has been said and what has not been said.

Thanks for the input :-)

In English law emails do not count in contract law.

[Tatsujin]

In English law emails do not count in contract law.

Wrong . . . they do count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_evidence

http://www.gillhams.com/articles/215.cfm

http://www.out-law.com/page-5537

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance

http://www.contractsandagreements.co.uk/law-and-verbal-agreements.html

http://www.out-law.com/page-5537

Edited February 22, 2011 by Tatsujin

[InterestedObserver]

I, for one, would certainly like to hear Mr. X's side of the story. Don't worry about the police. If no criminal laws have been broken they will not get involved in a contract dispute, that is essentially a matter for the civil courts. Defamation and/or internet fraud, that is another matter altogether.

Defamation IS a Criminal Offence in Thailand . . .

The defamation did not occur in the contract as such. Unless there was a fraud committed in relation to the actual contract, then it's a business dispute pure and simple and will have to be resolved by the civil courts.

[Tatsujin]

The defamation did not occur in the contract as such. Unless there was a fraud committed in relation to the actual contract, then it's a business dispute pure and simple and will have to be resolved by the civil courts.

As I understand it, the contract was broken by Mr X and the OP has proof that is acceptable to the Thai Legal system that this is so. This if it is pursued becomes a Civil Case.

The defamation is a separate matter and is a Criminal Case and would be dealt with as such. There is however overlap between the two and the Thai's may well combine the two cases into one.

I'd be interested to hear some feedback from some "real" Lawyers on this matter rather than what the weekend warrior TV posters "think" or "want" to believe is the Law.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Tatsujin

[HeavyDrinker]

Tatsujin.

Take your head out of your arse mate. None of those links you provided say that emails are inadmissible evidence in court.

Seems like theres only one 'Weekend Warrior' here wanting to show the 'law' as they see it....

[olsen]

Any comments from a "real" lawyer would indeed be appreciated

[Tatsujin]

HD > perhaps your reading skills need brushing up on . . .

http://www.out-law.com/page-5537

"E-mail is a form of documentary evidence and can be admitted as evidence in court in the same way as can other forms of documentary evidence. However, as with other forms of evidence, the reliability of e-mail evidence will be subject to scrutiny."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_evidence

"Digital evidence or electronic evidence is any probative information stored or transmitted in digital form that a party to a court case may use at trial.[1] Before accepting digital evidence a court will determine if the evidence is relevant, whether it is authentic, if it is hearsay and whether a copy is acceptable or the original is required."

I could go on . . . but there's enough information out there that's easily accessible to anyone to show that email IS admissible in Court within Thailand, the UK and the USA.

[MegaRanter]

Mr X voided the contract when he decided to engage the builder directly, The warranty no longer is valid or applicable. As simple as when you take a new car with warranty to a road side mechanic, the auto maker bears no responsibility if you used fake or substandard parts.

[powderpuff]

Mr. X reportedly made a separate deal with the construction contractor in contravention of the OP's contract. Mr. X is now having trouble with the construction contractor after offering only 50% payment. I'm sure the Thai contractor will be more than happy to testify in court.

If the nitwit paid only 50% of the money I can be sure only 42% of the work got done. Thai's aren't as gullible as we are.

Edited February 22, 2011 by powderpuff

[powderpuff]

If it goes to a judge, real simple.

Mr.X got mad because there was no carport. But in his own supplied drawings there was no carport.

Mr X is irrational. Why am I here in court?

Judge Judy would rule on this in under 5 seconds. And MrX would be in a jail cell for wasting the courts time.

Edited February 22, 2011 by powderpuff

[HeavyDrinker]

I could go on . . . but there's enough information out there that's easily accessible to anyone to show that email IS admissible in Court within Thailand, the UK and the USA.

Well good luck in finding a case that's ever been settled on emails being used as evidence alone there....

Emails can not be admissible for it can never be proven 100% that the accused has written them. They are merely circumstantial evidence.

It even states in both examples you give that ''Before accepting digital evidence a court will determine if the evidence is relevant, whether it is authentic'', and '' However, as with other forms of evidence, the reliability of e-mail evidence will be subject to scrutiny''

You'd best stop before you make yourself look even more stupid.

Edited February 22, 2011 by HeavyDrinker

[Tatsujin]

I could go on . . . but there's enough information out there that's easily accessible to anyone to show that email IS admissible in Court within Thailand, the UK and the USA.

Well good luck in finding a case that's ever been settled on emails being used as evidence alone there....

Emails can not be admissible for it can never be proven 100% that the accused has written them. They are merely circumstantial evidence.

It even states in both examples you give that ''Before accepting digital evidence a court will determine if the evidence is relevant, whether it is authentic'', and '' However, as with other forms of evidence, the reliability of e-mail evidence will be subject to scrutiny''

You'd best stop before you make yourself look even more stupid.

HD > You've said from the beginning that email evidence is NOT admissible in Court under any circumstances and I disagreed.

I've said from the beginning that it IS admissible.

I've shown that it CAN be and IS admitted as evidence provided it can be verified and that this is accepted by the presiding Judge. As with any evidence, the presiding Judge can and will decide on whether any type of evidence is acceptable.

Again, as stated before, email evidence is something I have personally seen used successfully in Cases both in the UK and in Thailand.

Lawyers > can someone step in please and put this to rest once and for all

[HeavyDrinker]

Again. emails by their very nature can not be admissible in court.

Any unsigned document is inadmissible which includes emails. I'll admit that they could be used to support admissible evidence but in their own right as in this case, they are of no real value whatsoever.

For an email to be admissible it must be proven beyond all doubt that the defendant wrote the email - something which it is utterly impossible to do. You could trace all the IP addresses you wanted but to prove that one person actually sat down and wrote a particular email is impossible.

From my Legal Dictionary:

If the evidence is documentary, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that it is authentic, and must be able to demonstrate the chain of custody from the original author to the present holder

Edited February 23, 2011 by HeavyDrinker

[clinique]

Sorry mods if not supposed to quote like this.

The quoted answer makes it clear there is room for "reasonable doubt" - which in most jurisdictions is enough to disallow the 'purported' evidence.

From Answers.com

Are emails admissible in court?

In: Law & Legal Issues [Edit categories] Chiang mai Luxury Homeswww.thelagunahome.com<BR itxtvisited="1">Buy a luxury home/villa/house in beautiful Chiangmai<BR itxtvisited="1">Ads [Improve] <P itxtvisited="1"><P itxtvisited="1">

Answer

<P itxtvisited="1"><P itxtvisited="1"><P itxtvisited="1">Generally the presiding judge decides what form of evidence can be submitted. <P itxtvisited="1">If an e-mail can be connected to the person without there being any doubt of someone else having sent it, then it is possible it could be used as evidence in some cases. If the e-mail account was accessible to others, it is highly doubtful it would be allowed to be entered as evidence.

<BR style="CLEAR: left; DISPLAY: block" itxtvisited="1">

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_emails_admissible_in_court#ixzz1Ekg2qUsq

[huawei]

Again. emails by their very nature can not be admissible in court.

Any unsigned document is inadmissible which includes emails. I'll admit that they could be used to support admissible evidence but in their own right as in this case, they are of no real value whatsoever.

For an email to be admissible it must be proven beyond all doubt that the defendant wrote the email - something which it is utterly impossible to do. You could trace all the IP addresses you wanted but to prove that one person actually sat down and wrote a particular email is impossible.

From my Legal Dictionary:

If the evidence is documentary, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that it is authentic, and must be able to demonstrate the chain of custody from the original author to the present holder

This is absolutely not true. I have been in the situation where emails were an admissible part of the evidence when a verbal agreement is made and disagreement arises. It is not difficult when the person is using a e-mail of the company that is providing the service. Even with personnel mail, it is not too difficult to validate when used within context.I have been provided with legal opinion on this.

Edited February 23, 2011 by huawei

[PattayaParent]

Agreed with gregb. Emails are not PROOF nor are they contractual and in many places not acceptable in court because they can be altered/tampered with by other than the sender. Or in fact they could be sent by anyone using the senders email address.

For avoidance of doubt and for your own peice of mind a Signed cancellation of contract from X is required.

But a letter on the other hand would be entirely acceptable as it cannot be sent from any other place than the address stated on it nor the signature forged

[HeavyDrinker]

This is absolutely not true. I have been in the situation where emails were an admissible part of the evidence when a verbal agreement is made and disagreement arises. It is not difficult when the person is using a e-mail of the company that is providing the service. Even with personnel mail, it is not too difficult to validate when used within context.I have been provided with legal opinion on this

It still doesn't make them admissible. All they are are circumstantial to the central claim which would be the dispute between the parties of the verbal agreement.

If the case ever had to hinge on the email(s), any defence lawyer worth his salt would deny all liability of them on behalf of his client, hence they are inadmissible.

[Tatsujin]

This is absolutely not true. I have been in the situation where emails were an admissible part of the evidence when a verbal agreement is made and disagreement arises. It is not difficult when the person is using a e-mail of the company that is providing the service. Even with personnel mail, it is not too difficult to validate when used within context.I have been provided with legal opinion on this

It still doesn't make them admissible. All they are are circumstantial to the central claim which would be the dispute between the parties of the verbal agreement.

If the case ever had to hinge on the email(s), any defence lawyer worth his salt would deny all liability of them on behalf of his client, hence they are inadmissible.

HD > you must be a fantastic Lawyer to be so sure of yourself on this point despite all the evidence and statements to the contrary.

Having been involved with an entire case built that was built successfully around email evidence that was used in Courth within Thailand in the last 4 months and was won, I still completely disagree with you.

I'm bored now though with your inflexible, blinkered attitude and withdrawing from arguing the point anymore.

[HeavyDrinker]

Having been involved with an entire case built that was built successfully around email evidence that was used in Courth within Thailand in the last 4 months and was won, I still completely disagree with you.

I don't believe you. You haven't mentioned this 'case' in any of your previous posts. Methinks someones telling porkies because they've been shown up for trying to be a 'weekend warrior' legal expert.

I'm bored now though with your inflexible, blinkered attitude and withdrawing from arguing the point anymore.

Because you know I'm right.

[Tatsujin]

I don't believe you. You haven't mentioned this 'case' in any of your previous posts.

Then your reading skills are as bad as your comprehension and understanding of the Law. Read my original posts again.

[huawei]

Having been involved with an entire case built that was built successfully around email evidence that was used in Courth within Thailand in the last 4 months and was won, I still completely disagree with you.

I don't believe you. You haven't mentioned this 'case' in any of your previous posts. Methinks someones telling porkies because they've been shown up for trying to be a 'weekend warrior' legal expert.

I'm bored now though with your inflexible, blinkered attitude and withdrawing from arguing the point anymore.

Because you know I'm right.

I will state this once more you are completely and utterly wrong. I think you should not state such things on forums to mis-lead. I am actually at this very time persueing a legal solution based on admissible e-mail evidence and a lot of it.