Judicial principles and studies
Ordinary Document / Computer Output / Commercial Books
Evidence-law provisions treat certain computer outputs as having ordinary probative value, distinguishing outputs attributed to an opposing party from those prepared by a party for itself; courts retain the power to summon documents to verify accounting entries and invoices.
Courts and procedure
Judicial principles and studies
Updated: 10 September 2026
Editorial summary of a judicial principle or decision; consult the source below and do not treat the firm as the author of the decision.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
Evidence-law provisions treat certain computer outputs as having ordinary probative value, distinguishing outputs attributed to an opposing party from those prepared by a party for itself; courts retain the power to summon documents to verify accounting entries and invoices.
Key points
- Subject
- Summary
- Practical significance
Useful for: Useful for initial reading and identifying questions that may need legal review.
This automatic summary is based on the published text. It is not legal advice and does not replace checking official sources and reviewing the facts with a qualified lawyer.
AI generation is optional and subject to Gemini usage limits. Do not send client data or attachments from this card.
Subject
The provided points interpret Evidence Law provisions on computer outputs versus commercial books: Article 13/3/d places an evidentiary consequence on computer outputs attributed to an opposing party by shifting to that party the burden to prove that the outputs were not extracted, attested, signed, or that no one was authorized to do so. Article 18 accords to outputs used by merchants the status of commercial books, while preserving the court's authority under Article 185 of the Civil Procedure Code to summon documents that help verify accounting entries and the invoices underlying them.
Summary
- Computer outputs attributed to the opponent carry ordinary probative weight and impose on that opponent the duty to show they were not extracted, attested, signed, or delegated. - Article 13/3/d does not extend to outputs prepared by a party for its own evidentiary use; such self-prepared outputs are not automatically treated as opponent-attributed evidence. - While Article 18 treats merchants' outputs like commercial books, the court may still invoke Article 185 powers to obtain documents necessary to confirm the accuracy of accounting entries and the supporting invoices. This content is an educational summary only and does not constitute judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
The provided points interpret Evidence Law provisions on computer outputs versus commercial books: Article 13/3/d places an evidentiary consequence on computer outputs attributed to an opposing party by shifting to that party the burden to prove that the outputs were not extracted, attested, signed, or that no one was authorized to do so. Article 18 accords to outputs used by merchants the status of commercial books, while preserving the court's authority under Article 185 of the Civil Procedure Code to summon documents that help verify accounting entries and the invoices underlying them.
Summary?
- Computer outputs attributed to the opponent carry ordinary probative weight and impose on that opponent the duty to show they were not extracted, attested, signed, or delegated. - Article 13/3/d does not extend to outputs prepared by a party for its own evidentiary use; such self-prepared outputs are not automatically treated as opponent-attributed evidence. - While Article 18 treats merchants' outputs like commercial books, the court may still invoke Article 185 powers to obtain documents necessary to confirm the accuracy of accounting entries and the supporting invoices. This content is an educational summary only and does not constitute judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance?
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
Study collection
Companies, contracts, and investment
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Corporate, governance, and investment advice
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related serviceRelated Jordanian-law guides
Contextual links to related public guide routes; they remain limited to Jordanian law and do not replace matter review.