Can a contract be legally standing if only a photocopy of it exists ?

Question

A private sale of goods contract was drawn up between two individuals. The original cannot be found but there is a photocopy of the original date and signed contract. Can this photocopy be used to legally enforce the contract or can this only be done if the original is found ? Thanks.

The scenario is not related to a court case. A UK government depatrment is asking to see a contract to prove legal ownership of items. The original is lost but only a photocopy remains. Both parties in the agreement have validated that the photocopy is accurate. But the government department are saying that it does not prove legal ownership as it's not an original. Are they correct ?

Answer 1

i deal with rate contracts for a courier at work..all of our kept contracts are photocopies..as long as they clearly show any signatures of acceptance and the costs , that is a legally binding contract.

ADDED - The company I work for scans all contract onto a website based archiving system, which means that all contracts in hard copy format are printed copies and are legally binding. This is for a major international courier and has been tested in court before im sure, or else we wouldnt have just spent out loads on this system. So yes, a photocopy is legally binding, if signatures, and terms that are agreed are all clearly visible.

Answer 2

This is a real issue. My real estate agent had all the originals signed with blue ink so everyone could tell which were the originals and which were the copies, as the signatures of the copies would come out with black signatures. Each party in the sale got one copy of the original (buyer and seller) It was up to them to safeguard their original copy.

I can not imagine in any business deal of any great amount, both parties would lose their original copies. That indicates pretty sloppy record keeping on both parts.

However, lets say you bought a house or a car. The contracts for those are pretty standard. Lets say you got a photocopy of one of those standard contracts with the proper boxes and lines filled in and signed. You can compare it to the standard contract to show nothing unusual is present, compare the signatures to originals, confirm the facts of the contract with verbal statements and make the contract stand up even with a copy.

On the other hand, if you have a photocopy and it is not like the standard contract for a house or car, you start questioning why it is different. Usually such a change is in favor of one part Vs the other. If the party who it favors is the one who "just happens" to have a photocopy Vs an original and that party says the photocopy is valid and the other does not, I would question the photocopy as to why that odd change was made.

Bottom line, when you sign a contract, make sure you get an original copy with signatures. Do not lose it. It is much easier to enforce a contract with the original rather than a copy. You do not look very competent coming into court with only a photocopy, specially if you actually did make some changes to the standard contract.

Answer 3

Yes. The best evidence rule holds that originals should be produced as the best evidence of an agreement between the parties. In the absence of an original, a duplicate copy is OK. In the days of mimeographs, this generally referred to those kinds of copies. But now, photocopies are the next best evidence to the originals.

** Note: This is a general discussion of the subject matter of your question and not legal advice. Local laws or your particular situation may change the general rules. For a specific answer to your question you should consult legal counsel with whom you can discuss all the facts of your case. **

Answer 4

There should surely be two original copies, one for each party? I would have thought that the photocopy could be produced backed by sworn evidence as to the fact that the original is lost, but that this is a true copy containing the original details and that the onus would be on the other party to rebut it by producing its own original.

Answer 5

A photocopy is not a legal document unless countersigned - as they can be created by superimposing one document onto another with little or no visible traces - it would be hard to prove that it was a copy of a genuine document.

However, photocopies have been used successfully in court cases to prove intent or ownership - it would largely depend on the circumstances and viewpoint of a legally appointed agent/solicitor/court.

This is one of thse grey areas.

Answer 6

Unless the contract is one which is required by law to be evidenced in writing, there is no need for a written contract. The photocopy of the contract is further evidence of the existence of the contract.

Answer 7

A contract of any kind is binding whether by photocopy, fax or email. However, it could be disputed by the other party and if they can argue that your copy is incorrect or void then its stalemate until its status is adjudicated in law or by arbitration.

Answer 8

A copy is as good as the original.

Answer 9

reckon not