MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2757274567

Did You Really Send It? Email Evidence in Litigation and Arbitration in Argentina

2017· article· en· W2757274567 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisandro A. Allende, Arturo E. Fontana

Notice bibliographique

RevueDefense Counsel Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPopularityArbitrationLawCivil procedureOrder (exchange)LiabilityEconomic JusticeBusinessInternet privacyPolitical scienceComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

EVERY second an estimated 2.4 million emails are sent. The number of email users worldwide is 3.7 billion, and the amount of emails sent per day is around 269 billion. (1) The practical advantages of these technologies are obvious: they are time-saving, cost-effective and reliable. Most of our communications, whether professional or personal, are not held in paper or physical support but in an intangible record. Since the application of every new technology comes with inevitable controversies, it has been necessary to legislate on these innovations in order to prevent conflicts and provide adequate answers to those in need of justice. Because of its timeless quality and general, ample wording, the 19th Century Argentine Civil and Commercial Codes have been used to rule over a wide range of matters involving postal or electronic mails, with almost no legal improvements since their enactments (1862 and 1869, respectively). But in recent times, with the massive popularity of new forms of communications, it has become necessary to pass a law that includes not only facsimile or electronic mails, but also all kind of new technologies widely used. In response to those needs, the newly unified Civil and Commercial Code (2) (CCC) regulates all types of electronic communications and applies to all kind of information in the form of a data message, in accordance with the first article of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce. (3) I. CCC provisions The CCC provides practical solutions involving the admissibility of evidence based on emails in both arbitration and litigation procedures. It is worth to point out that in matters concerning signature and its evidential value, the CCC follows the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce and the Civil Code of Quebec. (4) UNCITRAL Model Law Electronic Commerce has influenced legislation in more than thirty countries, including the CCC, as set out in its preface. (5) Although not expressly stated, the CCC also closely follows the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts. (6) As noted above, the CCC takes into account all methods of written communications. Hence, emails are a type of evidence that can be admitted in arbitration and in court in the same way as any other methods of documentary evidence. However, the letter of the law establishes several limitations regarding confidentiality, as a way of protecting privacy. A positive aspect of the Argentine legal system is that it allows all types of evidence, even if it is not expressly permitted by law. These principles are referred to as freedom of proof. Any written communication, regardless of its form of creation or transmission, is admissible as evidence as long as it has been lawfully acquired and is not confidential. For the purposes of this article, evidence is referred to as information intended to prove a fact from which a conclusion may logically be drawn as to the existence of that fact. Evidence is a crucial tool for the judiciary as it is used to determine matters of controversy. It may consist of proof by testimony of witnesses, writings or records. In adjudicating a matter, judges prefer direct evidence like documents or witness assertions; that is why in many cases intangible electronic evidence is challenged on its admissibility. Legal limitations on admissibility are not based on mistrust of the technology, but are justified by the constitutional right to privacy. The law requires that the use of confidential emails as evidence in arbitration or in litigation be authorized by the addressee, following the maxim nemo tenetur armare adversarium contra se, meaning that nobody is bound to arm his adversary against himself. Third parties are not allowed to use emails or any form of correspondence without the consent of the addressee. When this type of evidence is provided by someone who neither is the originator nor the addressee, magistrates are required to take into account how this person gained access to the mails and reject those obtained in an illegal way. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,040
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,080

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,025
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,006
Communication savante0,0070,003
Science ouverte0,0010,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,054
Tête enseignante GPT0,287
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDefense Counsel JournalMême sujetDispute Resolution and Class ActionsTravaux en français237 207