If a legal attest letter is returned to sender due to failure to be collected during the collection period, whether such a circumstance constitutes service of notice has long been argued among court holdings.

Those who hold affirming opinions believe that when the notice to collect is placed under the respondent’s disposal, the letter is deemed served (Taiwan Supreme Court Ruling Tai-Kang-Zi No. 174). There are also those who disagree with such a view. They believe that the notice to collect registered mail only notifies the respondent to collect the letter from the post office; before the respondent actually collects the letter, he/she cannot know the content of the letter simply from the notice to collect.

Therefore the delivery of the notice per se does not constitute service of notice (Taiwan Supreme Court Ruling 100-Tai-Kang-Zi No. 722).

‍

With respect to the different views above, Taiwan Supreme Court rendered Ruling 109-Tai-Shang-Da-Zi No. 908 to provide a coherent holding, which we summarize as follows:  

1. In regard to expression of intent inter absents, As to the expression of intent inter absents, Taiwan adopts the doctrine of arrival (first part of Paragraph 1 of Article 95 of the Civil Code). That is, an expression of intent becomes effective at the moment when the notification of the expression reaches the area over which the respondent has substantive control and, in such circumstances under the common social beliefs, it is expected that the respondent is able to understand the expression.

2. Although a notice to collect registered mail is not the expression of intent itself, however, based on common social beliefs, when such a notice is placed in the respondent’s residence or place of business, the respondent is expected to go to the post office to collect the mail, and the mail would then enter the area of the respondent’s control. The expression of intent by the expresser has then arrived and becomes effective accordingly. The actual collection of the mail by the respondent is not required, and it does not matter whether or not the mail is returned due to failure to be collected during the collection period. This is to prevent the respondent from using his/her arbitrary act to control the point of time the expression of intent goes into effect.

3. However, since the respondent is not the party who initiated the sending of the registered mail, exceptions are granted if the respondent can prove objectively that he/she has a just cause for not collecting the mail when the notice to collect registered mail arrives.Based on Taiwan Supreme Court Ruling 109-Tai-Shang-Da-Zi No. 908, the intent to be expressed by the mail is then deemed served upon the arrival of the notice and becomes legally effective on the receiving party, except where a just cause for not being able to collect the mail exists objectively.

‍

Therefore, when one receives such as notice, he/she should collect the mail from the post office as soon as possible to protect his/her rights.