This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
I am not really all that keen on any of these phrases (especially standing alone, not being part of a longer sentence). I am not so keen on use of "against", which seems to reply on a relatively uncommon use of "against" meaning "in exchange for". I'd prefer something more obvious ("upon"?), unless "against" is favoured for some legal reason. Or unless it would retain the character of the original phrasing.
From what I can gather of the description, a translation such as "Return receipt requested" would seem more intuitive, but apparently I'm missing something, because that applies to a subtly different process (described in §175 of the ZPO).
How about "Confirmation of receipt to be returned", or "Return receipt required"?
Explanation: It seems to be a particular thing for lawyers to issue, not just anybody acknowledging any receipt of any item.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 7 hrs (2017-03-27 14:01:17 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Just above the Answers, there is a section for Discussion. Maybe you have to click a box to "Show Discussion," if it is hidden by default in your profile.
For a general document (typically sealed) where an already-dated form needs to be signed by the recipient, in the presence of the sender's representative, upon delivery ['by hand'] being effected (following VwZG 'option 1'): See VwZG §5(1) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vwzg_2005/__5.html <small>[N.B. "Das Empfangsbekenntnis ist schriftlich abzugeben, sonst aber formlos." — haufe.de]</small> * "To be signed for" (makes sense as an instruction on the exterior of the package/envelope; could additionally be included on the letter itself, perhaps as a reminder for the sender to organise the appropriate delivery — or also, of course, in the event of unsealed documents being delivered, which is also allowed under VwZG). [Note: I like this "To be ..." phrasing here, as the sender's representative is present, so the phrase acts more as a 'reminder' or 'pointer' than as new information/instruction/request.]
----- I think (hope?!) we have just about exhausted this topic now. I certainly feel much more informed.
Thank-you to all contributors (and especially to Björn), David Verrelli
- The recipient's signature does not formally acknowledge a particular date of delivery [I think]. (E.g. are they vouching for the accuracy of the delivery agent's watch, or the delivery service's IT systems? [I don't think so.]) - Transmission of the confirmation to the original sender is handled exclusively by the postal/courier service. * "To be signed for" (makes sense as an instruction on the exterior of the package/envelope; could additionally be included on the letter itself, perhaps as a reminder for the sender to specify the appropriate postage option). * "Confirmation of delivery [is] required" (also reasonable, and consistent with the Royal Mail's phrasing). * "Signature required upon delivery" (also possible).
For an item sent by 'registered post' (or 'Signed For 1st Class post', or equivalent postal or courier service): https://auspost.com.au/parcels-mail/sending-in-australia/dom... https://auspost.com.au/parcels-mail/sending-overseas/interna... The recipient signs on a sheet or device carried by the delivery agent. If any date or time is included, I think it would be entered by the delivery agent (or their IT system). [BTW: in Australia as a sender I have never seen the recipient's signature, but apparently Royal Mail offers this to senders.] These days such services typically include 'tracking', which means a barcode is attached to the exterior of the package, and this is scanned at various milestones of the delivery process (incl. esp. delivery!). Differences from the prior two 'cases': - The recipient's signature acknowledges that they have received the delivery of some package/envelope, whose contents are as-yet unknown. (E.g. they could legitimately sign to acknowledge a delivery was made, and then later discover that the envelope was empty.) ...
For an item sent by email or fax (but not following VwZG §5(5–7)): If, furthermore, the onus is put on the recipient to confirm receipt... ...then this is similar to case 2a, but without the enclosed form, and without emphasis on the date of receipt. * "Please confirm successful transmission" (fits the Southend Uni. Hospital phrasing) * "Please confirm successful receipt" (fits the RCVS phrasing) * "Please acknowledge receipt of documents" (fits the 'Companies House' phrasing)
For a general document where an enclosed/attached form needs to be returned to the sender (following ZPO §174, or following VwZG 'option 2'): The recipient signs and dates the form, and sends it back to the original sender. The form may or may not list the items that should have been received. * "Please acknowledge receipt" (my preference) * "Acknowledgement of receipt [is] required" (also reasonable) * "Please sign [and date]/return the Acknowledg[e]ment of Receipt form" (possible, but getting a bit wordy) * "To be signed for" (quite possible, although it does not explicitly mention that a date is [apparently] required as part of the acknowledgement) The first two alternatives look most suitable to me in the case of electronic transmission following VwZG §5(5–7). http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vwzg_2005/__5.html
For a 'legal document' where an enclosed/attached form needs to be returned to the original sender (following ZPO §174): The recipient signs and dates the form, and sends it back to the sender. The form will likely be prepared with an itemised list of all enclosures that should have been received. * "Served against acknowledgement of receipt" (ellipting "served" does not work in English) * "Please acknowledge receipt" (also possible) * "Acknowledgement of receipt [is] required" (also possible) * various other options may exist that haven't been explored here; consistency with locally prevailing 'legalese' should be considered.
---- Note: it will become evident that I am trying to capture the characteristics of a few different 'use cases' (as they say in the IT world), and summarise some suitable translations of "gegen Empfangsbekenntnis" for each, based on each contributor's input.
In any case, though, German VwZG regulations seem to imitate the ZPO ones for court documents, so I don't see why the English translation shouldn't be somewhat in line with court practice too.
The Californian link at the end of the previous post is a good example. They either say "requested" (an alternative to "required"?), or call it "Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt" and it includes the things you need: "Two copies of a form called Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt must be included with all of the papers sent to the other party. The person sending the papers must also include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope. The [see above] must name the person who is being served [...] If the person being served signs, dates and returns the form, the papers have been officially served. [...] If the form is returned to the sender the party is served on the date the [...] form was signed."
Sounds "perilously" close to VwZG regulations.
My suggestions: 1) Acknowledg(e)ment of receipt requested/required 2) Please acknowledge/confirm receipt (as you and Allegro have said) 3) Please (date and) sign/return Acknowledg(e)ment of Receipt form.
Para. 1 through 3 of § 5 (item 1 after "two options" below) does not say who can receive the document (in a way, also para. 5): "Die Vorschrift betrifft in Abs. 1–3 die Zustellung an jedermann und erfasst nur schriftliche Dokumente; elektronische Dokumente können auf diese vereinfachte Weise nicht zugestellt werden. Bei dieser Zustellungsart erfolgt die Übergabe des Schriftstücks durch einen Bediensteten der zustellenden Behörde. [...] Abs. 5 gilt nur für die Zustellung elektronischer Dokumente und ermöglicht die elektronische Zustellung auch an andere als die in Abs. 4 genannten Personen." https://www.haufe.de/steuern/steuer-office-premium/schwarzpa...
I'd like to apologize to everyone for the lengthy discussion entries, but I'm not big on government regulations...
Cf.: "Verwaltungszustellungsgesetz (VwZG)"
Independent of ZPO regulations: "Die Vorschriften dieses Gesetzes gelten für das Zustellungsverfahren der Bundesbehörden, der bundesunmittelbaren Körperschaften, Anstalten und Stiftungen des öffentlichen Rechts und der Landesfinanzbehörden."
There are two options to deliver:
1) "Bei der Zustellung durch die Behörde händigt der zustellende Bedienstete das Dokument dem Empfänger in einem verschlossenen Umschlag aus. [...] Der Empfänger hat ein mit dem Datum der Aushändigung versehenes Empfangsbekenntnis zu unterschreiben. Der Bedienstete vermerkt das Datum der Zustellung auf dem Umschlag des auszuhändigenden Dokuments oder bei offener Aushändigung auf dem Dokument selbst. "
2) "Das Dokument kann an Behörden, Körperschaften [...] auch auf andere Weise[...] zugestellt werden. [...] Zum Nachweis der Zustellung nach den Absätzen 4 und 5 genügt das mit Datum und Unterschrift versehene Empfangsbekenntnis, das an die Behörde durch die Post oder elektronisch zurückzusenden ist."
I only zeroed in on the AUS "Acknowledgment of Service" form, David, because (see https://www.haufe.de/sozialwesen/sgb-office-professional/jan... ): "Als Nachweis der Zustellung dient das an die Behörde zurückzusendende mit Datum und Unterschrift versehene Empfangsbekenntnis (§ 174 Abs. 4 Satz 1 ZPO)."
So you send a back a form, not just some scribbled note. See here too (includes the changes that will go into effect next year...you never know when you need this one again!): "Mit diesem Anhang geht man bis zum 1.1.2018 genauso um wie bisher. Man kann das Empfangsbekenntnis ▪ • ausdrucken, ▪ • unterschreiben und ▪ • per Fax oder im Original an das Gericht zurücksenden." https://www.haufe.de/recht/deutsches-anwalt-office-premium/1...
Good example, IMO: "We will acknowledge receipt of documents if you provide a stamped addressed envelope and a copy of your covering letter - this only confirms we've received the document, not that it has been registered." https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house/...
To Allegro's comment (second sentence): "Quite possibly this letter is ONLY delivered when signed for, which I think is implied by 'gegen'."
Yes, that is the preferred solution, I'd say, but it's neither implied in my opinion, nor is it "only" delivered like this. Otherwise, this here would not be possible: "Er sandte das Empfangsbekenntnis erst am 23.3.2010 zurück. Das Empfangsbekenntnis trug das Datum 3.3.2010." https://www.haufe.de/recht/kanzleimanagement/empfangsbekennt...
Besides, that would kind of defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? You name a group of people who are more "trustworthy" in the government's eyes and then you make them sign a paper immediately in the presence of someone else.
"In other words, if the recipient didn't send back any acknowledgement, could they be specifically penalised for that?"
Yes, they can, although it may depend on the type of document I guess. From the same link one post below: "Nach § 14 BORA hat der Rechtsanwalt ordnungsgemäße Zustellungen entgegenzunehmen und das Empfangsbekenntnis mit Datum versehen unverzüglich zurückzusenden. [...] Prozessual besteht zwar keine Pflicht zur Mitwirkung, die Mitwirkungspflicht ist jedoch als Berufspflicht in der anwaltlichen Berufsordnung (§ 14 BORA) geregelt. 'Die fehlende Mitwirkung stellt einen berufsrechtlichen Pflichtverstoß dar.'" https://www.haufe.de/recht/kanzleimanagement/empfangsbekennt...
Not sure about government departments, but I imagine that the outcome won't be much different.
"'Please acknowledge receipt' as the most fitting translation" I believe it is. Alternative: "Please confirm successful receipt" (could have been done electronically).
Here it is: "Perhaps 'Übermittlung gegen Empfangsbekenntnis' is actually a better match for my case?"
Not sure that makes any difference. As you said further below: "This Dienststelle is (AFAIK) a public institution, and I suppose one of their staff completes the acknowledgement — as per your suggestion."
I agree and I think this is the important part here. From another link: "§ 174 ZPO schafft eine erleichterte Möglichkeit der Zustellung an Zustellungsadressaten, bei denen aufgrund ihres Berufes mit hinreichender Sicherheit erwartet werden kann, dass sie das Empfangsbekenntnis unverzüglich zurücksenden (Kessen, ZPO, § 174 Rn. 1). [...] Gegen Empfangsbekenntnis wird insbesondere zugestellt an Rechtsanwälte und Behörden." https://www.haufe.de/sozialwesen/sgb-office-professional/jan...
I've been reading up a bit, so yes, I think you and Allegro are correct that "service" isn't the best word here. The process looks quite similar to me (cf. https://www.familylawmattersaustralia.com.au/court-forms/ser... ), but section 174 covers both legal and governmental matters.
Many thanks for your detailed response! Also thanks to Allegro for his comment. I appreciate it.
I'd still like to reply to certain statements you and Allegro made before this question is closed. I'll be doing that later today if that's OK.
One thing I can say right now, though: I prefer "acknowledge receipt" to anything with "signed" only, precisely because you have to sign and date it. This may seem like hypercorrectness, but
b) in Allegro's Royal Mail example, the signature is all that's needed - unless someone wants to tell me you have to put in the date as well; in Germany, this date is entered by the person who delivers the package.
c) the - much-talked about - date is the single most important thing of this whole process whichever term (service, receipt, etc.) you prefer to describe it.
To the fact that 'service' is a red herring here - this does not seem to be a legal document - the sender simply wants acknowledgement of receipt. Quite possibly this letter is ONLY delivered when signed for, which I think is implied by "gegen".
I'm sure that saying "please" would not, of itself, automatically mean that there was no legal obligation (e.g. "Please don't steal all my money!"). But, on the other hand, it doesn't indicate (or even suggest) an obligation either. Actually, I suspect that there may not be a 'legal obligation' to respond. In other words, if the recipient didn't send back any acknowledgement, could they be specifically penalised for that? I guess not. (Note: §179 of the ZPO applies to a slightly different circumstance. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/__179.html .) However, "Acknowledgement of receipt is required" does not have to mean "Acknowledgement of receipt is required by law and otherwise you'll be thrown in jail". It can also mean "Acknowledgement of receipt is required for this process to run smoothly and to avoid causing us unwarranted difficulties". In favour of the former option is that it is more concise. Having said that, I also agree with you that "Acknowledge receipt(!)" would seem somewhat harsh in English.
So, overall I am now leaning towards "Please acknowledge receipt" as the most fitting translation.
Dear Björn, on the topic of translating the phrase, your comments have given additional food for thought.
First, though, I hesitate to use the word "service" unless the communication clearly falls into that category (e.g. service of a writ). I would have thought that only 'legal documents' are "served", i.e. documents involving lawyers/attorneys/courts. http://www.courts.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/cats/catscorporat...
Based on your explanation of the 'intuitively obvious' meaning of "gegen Empfangsbekenntnis" to the average German, I would have to exclude "against acknowledgement of receipt", because — besides sounding unnatural — I doubt its intended meaning would be understood by most native speakers of English (due to a combination of ellipsis and the rather uncommon use of "against").
If choosing between "Please acknowledge receipt" and "Acknowledgement of receipt is required", my feeling is that the former is somewhat less likely to elicit a response than the latter option. ...
... I still don't see this as being something I would have thought of as being 'served' [although I'm not a legal expert], as it looks more like the term had simply run its normal course. Hence, "Sie werden [...] entlassen" (released/discharged). I suppose if the letter did not get through to the Dienststelle (or the citizen), then hypothetically the state could end up 'exploiting' the citizen if they served beyond the period they were obliged to. And requiring a written acknowledgement of receipt would avoid this.
Although the ZPO was an obvious reference for the phase, it turns out that it's not the only possibility. Also, thanks to your digging we can further consider "Aushändigung gegen Empfangsbekenntnis" and "Übersendung gegen Empfangsbekenntnis".
Dear Björn, I'm impressed by the scale of your investigation!
I should confess that I referred to the clauses of the ZPO only because they seemed (initially) to cover the definition of "[...] gegen Empfangsbekenntnis". Perhaps "Übermittlung gegen Empfangsbekenntnis" is actually a better match for my case? As far as I gather, my client had been serving in the Zivildienst, and nearing the end of that service the relevant Bundesamt sent out a written advice regarding the client's discharge. Initially I expected that the letter would have been sent directly to my client. However, taking everything into account, it seems most likely that it was sent to the Dienststelle (where my client fulfilled the Zivildienst). [In any case, copies of the letter for multiple parties must have been issued (probably all sent together), as the version I worked from had "Ausfertigung für den Zivildienstleistenden" at the top.] This Dienststelle is (AFAIK) a public institution, and I suppose one of their staff completes the acknowledgement — as per your suggestion. ...
And so on. Here's another link to prove my point: "Das Dokument kann an Behörden, Körperschaften, Anstalten und Stiftungen des öffentlichen Rechts, an Rechtsanwälte, Patentanwälte, Notare, Steuerberater, Steuerbevollmächtigte, Wirtschaftsprüfer, vereidigte Buchprüfer, Steuerberatungsgesellschaften, Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaften und Buchprüfungsgesellschaften auch auf andere Weise, auch elektronisch, gegen Empfangsbekenntnis zugestellt werden." https://www.lohnsteuer-kompakt.de/gesetze/5887/vwzg
So unless this phrase was chosen because it resembles legalese (happens sometimes, actually), there must be someone involved who is held "in higher esteem" or said to be more "trustworthy" - at least, according to the ZPO.
First, my sincerest apologies for putting in the wrong name. I tend to answer "in bulk," i.e., to reply to more than one discussion post at the same time. Very rarely, this has unintended side effects...
I googled a bit again, as promised, and here's my explanation. You can tell me what you think.
Except for one link I could find (https://www.uni-mainz.de/studlehr/ordnungen/AppO_Medizin_bis... ), the use of the document search function revealed "gegen Empfangsbekenntnis" mostly to refer to government departments/agencies or similar. This means that the document may be about an "ordinary citizen," but is not send to him or her, or this person is part of the authorities.
[continued...] This page basically includes everything you need, so yes, I think "acknowledgment of service" is a pretty good match - not least in light of the UK document on "service," the other one I posted a link to further below. You did ask for "legalese," or am I wrong?
However, if you ask me, I much prefer your first version in reply to Susan: "something along the lines of 'Please acknowledge receipt' or 'Acknowledgement of receipt is required' would be possible"
It is my understanding that saying "please" in English doesn't automatically mean you're not legally required to do something (but maybe someone has a different opinion here); it's just the more polite option to a German's "Shut the door already!"
"To those native speakers of German, how obvious do you reckon the meaning of 'gegen Empfangsbekenntnis' would be to the average German person if no other indication of the meaning were present"
"gegen" is short for "im Austausch gegen" - however, this is typically translated as "in exchange for." The German preposition is sufficient on its own to be understood by a native speaker of that language; the English one looks odd (you even said that in your question).
First off, thanks for your feedback. I'll try to reply to your statements/questions one by one. If there are any more questions, please let me know.
"Your first discussion post regarding attorneys signing forms didn't have a clear connection for me to the ordinary citizen" - I also thought this was odd. However, you asked about the difference between those two civil code sections and 174 narrows down the group to which it applies. See first sentence: "einen Anwalt, einen Notar, einen Gerichtsvollzieher, einen Steuerberater oder an eine sonstige Person, bei der auf Grund ihres Berufes von einer erhöhten Zuverlässigkeit ausgegangen werden kann, eine Behörde, eine Körperschaft oder eine Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts" https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/__174.html
I'll look into that today again, I promise.
"In your third post, the link to the Family Court" - I bookmarked a link here for you, in case you were still interested in the question (some askers aren't...).
While I did not originally favour the somewhat fragmentary translations like "against acknowledgement of receipt" or "upon acknowledgement of service", it's possible that I was not putting due weight on the fact that "gegen Empfangsbekenntnis" may itself be a fragment of the fuller phrase "Zustellung gegen Empfangsbekenntnis". [Is there any other possibility? "Übermittlung gegen Empfangsbekenntnis" perhaps? Yes! http://www.gbv.de/dms/spk/sbb/toc/023319232.pdf ...] To those native speakers of German, how obvious do you reckon the meaning of "gegen Empfangsbekenntnis" would be to the average German person if no other indication of the meaning were present (e.g. no attached acknowledgement form)? —David
Dear Björn, your research into this is indeed appreciated. I should say at this point that I have already completed the job (I went with "Return receipt required"), but have not stopped thinking about this tricky little phrase. Your first discussion post regarding attorneys signing forms didn't have a clear connection for me to the ordinary citizen (i.e. not a lawyer/attorney) who had almost completed the Zivildienst. It still remains unclear to me why the date that his acknowledgement was received back by the authorities would be critical. Your second post that indicates a subtle difference in the effect of §174 and §175 of the ZPO is quite enlightening. If the key difference is just in the different treatment of dates, then in English I dare say it would be safe to apply the same instruction/phrase (e.g. "Return receipt required"), unless a precise equivalent distinction exists in local Australian/UK/US/... law. In your third post, the link to the Family Court of Australia suggests another possible translation: "Acknowledgment of service required" (or some variant thereof). Would you like to venture a translation too? Thank-you, David
Don't see much difference to Australia here: "Service is the legal term used to describe the giving or delivering of court documents to another person in a way that satisfies the Court that the person has received them." http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/forms-...
See sections "Who do you serve the documents on" and below.
"Einschreiben mit Rückschein. Bei der Versendung als Einschreiben mit Rückschein ist der Zugang grundsätzlich bewiesen. Will der Empfänger den Zugang des Schriftstücks weiterhin bestreiten, muss er beweisen, dass das ihm zugegangene Schriftstück einen anderen Inhalt aufwies. Der Zugang ist jedoch bei einem Einschreiben nicht allein durch den Einwurf eines Benachrichtigungsschreibens mit der Aufforderung, das Schriftstück innerhalb einer bestimmten Frist abzuholen, bewirkt. Holt der Adressat das Schriftstück nicht ab, so ist kein Zugang erfolgt. Denn es besteht nach der Rechtsprechung keine allgemeine Obliegenheit, Willenserklärungen zu empfangen und deshalb auf Benachrichtigung hin Briefe von der jeweils zuständigen Poststelle abzuholen (OLG Brandenburg 03.11.2004 - 9 UF 177/04). Etwas anderes gilt nur, wenn der Adressat mit dem Zugang eines Schreibens rechnen musste." http://www.anwalt24.de/lexikon/zustellung_-_zivilprozess
This means that the receipt date in the case of section 174 depends on when the attorney signed the writ; the receipt date of section 175 is the date when the document was delivered (although there could be some argument what was in it).
Maybe I can help with the German. Explanation by Prof. Dr. Ekkehart Reinelt, Rechtsanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof: "Zustellungen an Anwälte können gegen Empfangsbekenntnis erfolgen. [...] Für den Beginn der Frist und die Rechtzeitigkeit der Zustellung ist maßgebend der Vermerk des Rechtsanwalts über den Empfang, also das von ihm dazu eingetragene Datum – nicht etwa das Datum des Zugangs des Schriftstücks im Büro des Anwalts. [...] Empfangsbereitschaft ist zwingende Voraussetzung der wirksamen Zustellung (BVerfG NJW 2001, 1563, 1564). Zugestellt werden kann gegen Empfangsbekenntnis sowohl ein gerichtliches Schriftstück (§ 174 ZPO) als auch der Schriftsatz oder die Unterlage eines Anwalts an einen anderen Anwalt (§ 195 ZPO). Der Streit resultiert aus der – verbreiteten – Unkenntnis über die Bedeutung des Empfangsbekenntnisses: Erst dessen Unterzeichnung (nicht der Zugang in der Kanzlei des gegnerischen Anwalts) bestimmt den Beginn der Frist. Es entscheidet das Datum, das der Rechtsanwalt auf dem Empfangsbekenntnis einträgt, also der Tag, an dem er sich zur Zustellung bekennt [...]." http://www.bghanwalt.de/veroeffentlichungen/vo_r121_c.htm
Thanks, Susan. <br/> I see the discussion now! Although I'm having trouble editing the original question. <br/> To clarify, although the phrase is is the top portion of the letter, it is not the 'heading'. It is with all the other administrative and logistic information (sender & address, recipient & address, date, reference code, etc.); it is 'standalone' in the same way that the date stands alone (not part of a longer sentence or paragraph). <br/> The question was posted for a couple of reasons: <br/> * do other translators think that the three alternatives I found online were fitting, or would another phrase fit better? <br/> * was there any reason I was overlooking as to why those three previous translations were worded as they were? <br/> * what difference in wording would be required for §174 of the ZPO compared to §175 of the ZPO? <br/> It would seem easier to vary the wording that relates to §174 if not for the (apparent) need to retain a contrast with the provisions of §175. Also, sometimes when it comes to legal provisions, the best translation(s) may not sound particularly 'natural' to the general public. <br/> —David
My comment was not intended to be snide, and I apologise if anyone took it this way. All I intended was to challenge the asker, as a native English-speaker, to trust his or her intuition here.
Snide comment is not appropriate. That is obviously what the Asker is trying to do. He has done his homework, but he still doesn't know the best solution.
The object of translation is to translate into natural English. Try looking at how this notion is usually expressed in correspondence in your own country.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
5 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +4
acknowledgement of receipt
Explanation: It seems to be a particular thing for lawyers to issue, not just anybody acknowledging any receipt of any item.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 7 hrs (2017-03-27 14:01:17 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Just above the Answers, there is a section for Discussion. Maybe you have to click a box to "Show Discussion," if it is hidden by default in your profile.
Susan Welsh United States Local time: 14:25 Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 8
Grading comment
Selected automatically based on peer agreement.
Notes to answerer
Asker: The term appears on a Zivildienst discharge letter issued by a government office (BAZ). The term is <u>not</U> appearing on an advice confirming that a document has been received. Therefore "acknowledgement of receipt" does not seem apt. However something along the lines of "Please acknowledge receipt" or "Acknowledgement of receipt is required" would be possible. <br>
Sorry, I can't seem to see the 'discussion' you referred to.