Also known as: senders
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The party whose inadvertent transmission of a document or electronically stored information triggers a duty of prompt notification by the receiving lawyer.
Attorney Dana at Sterling Dynamics receives an email from opposing counsel that contains confidential settlement figures clearly intended for the sender's own client. Dana recognizes the error immediately and must notify the sender without reviewing the substance further or using the information against the sender.
After an oral deal for custom parts, Synergy Systems emails a detailed confirmation to buyer Simon Stern. Simon reads the message but sends no objection within ten days. The confirmation binds Simon because it was sufficient against Synergy Systems as sender and Simon had reason to know its contents.
Richard Oloffson, doing business as Rich's Ag Service, entered into an agreement with Clarence Coomer on April 16, 1970, under which Coomer would sell and deliver 40,000 bushels of corn to Oloffson in October and December 1970. Oloffson described the deal as two separate contracts of 20,000 bushels each, priced at $1.12 3/4 per bushel for delivery by October 30 and $1.12 1/4 per bushel for delivery by December 15. Coomer confirmed the total quantity but stated he would deliver as much as possible by October 30 with the remainder by December 15. On June 3, 1970, Coomer notified Oloffson that he would not plant corn that season because of excessive wetness and instructed Oloffson to secure the corn from another source if Oloffson had commitments to third parties. The market price for corn for future delivery stood at $1.16 per bushel on that date. When Oloffson contacted Coomer again in September 1970 regarding the corn, Coomer repeated that delivery would not occur. Oloffson mailed confirmations of the April agreement to Coomer and had his attorney demand performance, but Coomer did not respond to either communication. Following the passage of both October 30 and December 15 without any deliveries, Oloffson obtained replacement corn by purchasing 20,000 bushels at $1.35 per bushel and 20,000 bushels at $1.49 per bushel. Oloffson brought suit against Coomer in the circuit court of Bureau County. After a trial without a jury, the court entered judgment for Oloffson in the amount of $1,500 plus costs. Oloffson appealed the judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court for the Third District.
View caseThe lawyer must promptly notify the sender. Notification allows the sender to take protective measures such as asserting privilege or seeking return of the document.
Supporting sources
No. The rule requires only prompt notification. Return or destruction is governed by other law or agreement between the parties.
Supporting sources
A writing sufficient against the sender that is received by the other merchant satisfies the statute of frauds against the recipient unless the recipient objects in writing within ten days.
Supporting sources
…occurred, Oloffson failed to act in good faith. According to Oloffson, he didn't ask for this information: "I'm no information sender. If he had asked I would have told him exactly what to do. I didn't feel my responsibility. I thought it his to ask, in which case I would tell him exactly what to do." We feel that…