Also known as: substantially identicals · substantially the same
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of equivalence under which two things match in all material respects even if they differ in minor details.
Stella Shapiro signed a release allowing a photographer to use images of her in a marketing campaign. When the photographer later used the images in a nearly identical online advertisement for the same product line, Stella claimed the release did not cover that use. The court held that the second use fell within the consent because it involved substantially the same conduct as the original campaign.
Simon Stern sent Sterling Dynamics a signed letter expressing interest in leasing warehouse space. After further talks the parties signed a second document that omitted the property description. When Sterling later denied any lease existed, the court read the two writings together and treated them as substantially the same as a single signed memorandum sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Santiago Sanchez and dozens of other beneficiaries lived in different states when a trust accounting proceeding began. Because personal service on every beneficiary would have been prohibitively expensive, the court allowed notice by publication to unknown parties and by mail to known ones. It found that all beneficiaries held substantially identical interests in the accounting, satisfying due process.
The standard permits minor differences in form or detail so long as the core substance remains the same. Courts apply it when the law seeks to prevent evasion through trivial changes while still requiring functional equivalence.
Supporting sources
It appears in consent to tortious conduct, sufficiency of writings under the statute of frauds, due-process notice to multiple parties, wash-sale rules in taxation, and work-product or prior-statement analysis in evidence and professional responsibility.
Supporting sources
No. The statement need only repeat the same admission or assertion in substantially the same terms. Minor variations in phrasing do not destroy its rehabilitative value when offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication.
Supporting sources