This Quote Means...?

[RickLax.com]

Just came across this in my Copyright book.  What does it mean?

“The court did not explain whether it considered defendant’s showing to have constituted proof overcoming the presumption of receipt arising from plaintiff’s testimony of mailing or whether it felt there was an unsatisfied burden on the plaintiff to show that the particularly responsible employees of the defendant had received his communication.”

-RickLax

[Jumboshrimps]

Yikes. At first glance, it appears that the author is trying to show the difference between an apple and an apple. The "overcoming of the presumption" and the "plaintiff's burden" are one in the same, no?

On the other hand, he might mean to say that it is unclear whether the court applied the "mailbox rule" presumption (that mailing = receipt) or just placed the burden on the plaintiff to show receipt in the first instance.

[Jhuen_the_bird]

I think it means that the author/judge is trying to hide that he/she has no idea what he/she is trying to say.

[slacker]

I've got a pretty good idea of what it means, but I don't want my answer repurposed on someone's blog.

[jacy85]

It means the defendant won, but the court didn't say why exactly.  Either the plaintiff didn't meet his burden re: the mailbox rule, OR the plaintiff met his burden, but the defendant produced enough evidence to overcome the presumption of receipt.

[RickLax.com]

Yikes. At first glance, it appears that the author is trying to show the difference between an apple and an apple. The "overcoming of the presumption" and the "plaintiff's burden" are one in the same, no?

Yes...that was my first take on it too...

[RickLax.com]

It means the defendant won, but the court didn't say why exactly.  Either the plaintiff didn't meet his burden re: the mailbox rule, OR the plaintiff met his burden, but the defendant produced enough evidence to overcome the presumption of receipt.

Okay...this actually sounds pretty right...

[RickLax.com]

Update: the new blog is here: -RickLax