A General Comment on Evidence
Sorry if this seems like I'm repeating myself, but repeating myself every so often helps the new people overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of information keep from hurting themselves.
Some of the biggest myths floating around the Internet concern use of e-mail as evidence. In no particular order, these include:
"E-mails can't be used as evidence without getting ahold of the sender's hard drive." Wrong. In modern evidence law, a copy of anything that does not by statute require certification (such as a birth certificate) is as good as the original absent actual independent evidence of alteration or inaccuracy of the copy. That means that printouts of e-mails,
with full headers included, are more than sufficient to use as evidence… except, of course, if you're contemplating "creative evidence," in which case I don't want to know about it.
"E-mail constitutes written notification." Generally, but not always, wrong. If the original contract calls for use of e-mail as written notification, an e-mail will suffice (but never for "registered" notices, as in PA contract versions D1 and later ¶ 30). Under certain circumstances specified by statute, an e-mail is good enough for notice; the prime example is the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 512, which allows one to contact an ISP to demand takedown of infringing material. Otherwise, though, if there's no possibility of putting a true signature on it, it's not "written notice." (That is not to say that all written notices
must be signed—only that it must be possible to sign them.)
"E-mail is so informal that it's not very good as evidence." Sometimes this is true; but never assume that it is. This is a case-by-case matter requiring actual legal judgment, not some boneheaded rule of thumb.
This has been a test of the legal commentary system. Had this been actual legal advice, it wouldn't have appeared in a public forum anyway.