Another Establishment About To Close?
So Sunfish, is this operator the one that yeaterday took off backwards over the river and flew backwards over my boat heading down stream without even knowing they power-blasted me from 30 feet above?
Or is the mob in question more "professional" than the one above?
Or is the mob in question more "professional" than the one above?
I was travelling downstream. It was facing west, lifted off, turned to the north, then proceeded to reverse out over the river, blind as to what was behind. As one not involved in this aviation activity, during the hover and takeoff phase, it's not something you want directly over your head.
I believe it is normal procedure on lift off from a helipad to back away from the pad and climb at the same time until reaching transition height. This allows for a return to the pad in the event of a power failure.
Electronic transactions act. Just updated version of the old postal rule that reflects changes in technology.the precedent is 'if I send it, claiming you never received it, is not a legal defence.'
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Aimlessly wandering
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey squawk, do you mean to tell me some atmospheric molecules were moved around your person without your explicit consent? Did the decibel level exceed an sensitive aural threshold? Quick! Take to the internet to right this injustice!
Electronic transactions act. Just updated version of the old postal rule that reflects changes in technology.the precedent is 'if I send it, claiming you never received it, is not a legal defence.'
Can you quote the provisions of the electronic transaction act that have the effect of deeming emails sent by the government as having been received by a private citizen or company?
the old postal rule that reflects changes in technology.the precedent is 'if I send it, claiming you never received it, is not a legal defence.'
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that's what the electronic transaction act does, at least in so far as electronic communications from government to a private citizen or company are concerned. However, I'm prepared to stand corrected.
Can you quote the provisions of the electronic transaction act that have the effect of deeming emails sent by the government as having been received by a private citizen or company?
Can you quote the provisions of the electronic transaction act that have the effect of deeming emails sent by the government as having been received by a private citizen or company?
These private citizens often have no other option but to reapply for another visa at a cost of $6,865 again. The AAT (MRT) also cost them around $2k.
I think it is safe to say they only need to prove they sent it.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contracts which expressly permit the giving of notices by email typically deem the notice to have been received at:
(a) the time the email is sent by the sender;
(b) a specific period after the time it is sent by the sender; or
(c) the time shown on a "delivery receipt" received by the sender.
There are potential issues with all of these methods and no easy solutions.
For option
(a), any delay between when the email is sent and when it is received is not accounted for, so what happens when the email is not received the instant it is sent? For option
(b), what if the email is received after the specified period or not received at all? In both cases, it would be unfair on the recipient to deem the email to have been received before the recipient could have received it.
While option
(c) overcomes these issues, it creates a problem for the sender, as recipients can set up their email systems so that delivery receipts are never issued, even if the sender requests one. How then does the sender prove the time of receipt?
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) – risks
This Act (and its state counterparts) provides some rules for determining when emails are taken to have been received. It says that, unless the parties agree otherwise:
(a) the time the email is sent by the sender;
(b) a specific period after the time it is sent by the sender; or
(c) the time shown on a "delivery receipt" received by the sender.
There are potential issues with all of these methods and no easy solutions.
For option
(a), any delay between when the email is sent and when it is received is not accounted for, so what happens when the email is not received the instant it is sent? For option
(b), what if the email is received after the specified period or not received at all? In both cases, it would be unfair on the recipient to deem the email to have been received before the recipient could have received it.
While option
(c) overcomes these issues, it creates a problem for the sender, as recipients can set up their email systems so that delivery receipts are never issued, even if the sender requests one. How then does the sender prove the time of receipt?
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) – risks
This Act (and its state counterparts) provides some rules for determining when emails are taken to have been received. It says that, unless the parties agree otherwise:
- if the email address is set out in the contract, the time of receipt is when the email enters the recipient's mail server; and
- if the contract does not designate an email address, the time of receipt is when it comes to the attention of the recipient.
- What if the sender gets a response from the recipient's email server saying that the email could not be delivered because it was too many megabytes?
- What if the sender gets an "out of office" response?
- What if the recipient has left the organisation?
The subject matter of this thread has nothing to do with contracts.
It's not safe to say that all the government has to do is prove it sent an email to someone.
It's not safe to say that all the government has to do is prove it sent an email to someone.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This act covers email and faxs - I know it is the case with DIBP (Department of Immigration and Boarder Protection) and it certainly would not surprise many (yourself excluded Lead Balloon) if it is a CASA policy in fine print that if you elect/agree (contact with your signature and date) to communication via email, they have elected option (a) above.
In fact I would assume most if not all Government agencies have it as a default Leady.
(Remember if CASA sent a "fax" on Christmas eve - but the fax did not print - fax was indeed considered received by CASA)
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)
Is a faxed message an electronic communication for the purposes of the Act?
Yes, it falls within the definition of ‘electronic communication’ because it is a message sent over phone lines as information. Usually the recipient receives the message through their fax machine in paper form but it can just as easily be received by a computer as an electronic document if the computer is attached to a fax modem. Alternatively, a computer can be used to send a fax to another computer. There will be no paper involved until either the sender or the recipient prints out the fax.
In fact I would assume most if not all Government agencies have it as a default Leady.
(Remember if CASA sent a "fax" on Christmas eve - but the fax did not print - fax was indeed considered received by CASA)
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)
Is a faxed message an electronic communication for the purposes of the Act?
Yes, it falls within the definition of ‘electronic communication’ because it is a message sent over phone lines as information. Usually the recipient receives the message through their fax machine in paper form but it can just as easily be received by a computer as an electronic document if the computer is attached to a fax modem. Alternatively, a computer can be used to send a fax to another computer. There will be no paper involved until either the sender or the recipient prints out the fax.
My apologies, BaL. It's obvious you're an expert. 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People (and legislators) have forgotten that a lot of email is a 'store-and-forward' system. There can be many points in the path between the devices at the sender and the recipient, for a message to be 'lost'.
Web-based email has less intermediate nodes, but without some form of 'delivery receipt' it is still not a guaranteed-delivery system.
Web-based email has less intermediate nodes, but without some form of 'delivery receipt' it is still not a guaranteed-delivery system.
