In the Matter of a Mail Dispute between:

 SAFEGUARD BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC.
 and
 JIM AND CATHY CLEMENT

 P.S. Docket No. MD-136

 12/27/91

 Grant, Quentin E., Chief Administrative Law Judge

 APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT SAFEGUARD BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC.: Thomas A.
 Schneider, Esq., 455 Maryland Drive, Fort Washington, PA  19034-2594 

 APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANTS JIM AND CATHY CLEMENT: Dick Harris, Esq.,
 Harris and McBeath, P. O. Box 3835, Abilene, TX  79604-3805

The Office of Field Legal Services, Southern Division, Memphis, TN, has forwarded this mail dispute for resolution pursuant to Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 153.72 and 39 C.F.R. Part 965.

Jim and Cathy Clement (Clements) have filed a submittal pursuant to $S965.5 of the Rules of Practice. Disputant Safeguard Business Systems, Inc. (Safeguard, Inc.) did not file such a submittal but has filed comments on the Clements' submittal in which it refers, for its position in the dispute, to its letter dated November 6, 199l, to Postal Service Counsel.

The following findings of fact are based on documents furnished by the parties to the postmaster at Abilene, TX, and to Postal Service Counsel, and the submittal and comments filed with the Recorder.

1. The disputants are Jim (James Roger) Clement and Cathy Clement, P. O. Box 6927, Abilene, TX 79608-6927 and Safeguard Business Systems, Inc. (Safeguard, Inc.), 455 Maryland Drive, Fort Washington, PA 19034.

2. By agreement dated September 23, 1985, Cathy Clement was appointed a distributor of Safeguard, Inc.'s products and services for a certain geographical area not defined in the record but including Abilene, TX.

3. To receive mail connected with her Safeguard distributorship, Cathy Clement, as applicant, on September 4, 1985, rented P. O. Box 6927 at the Southern Hills Station of the Abilene Post Office in the name Safeguard Business Systems. She has paid the box rental from that date.

4. Cathy and Jim Clement also received at Box 6927 personal mail addressed to them individually and mail addressed to Clement Company Safeguard Business Systems, an assumed business name registered by Cathy Clement in February 1986.

5. On April l, 1988, Cathy Clement, with the approval of Safeguard, Inc., appointed James Roger (Jim) Clement an associate distributor of Safeguard products and services.

6. By its terms, Cathy Clement's agreement with Safeguard, Inc. expired on September 23, 1985 (paragraph 7(a)). It appears, however, that the parties continued to operate as they had under the agreement until September 11, 1991.

7. By letter dated September 11, 199l, Safeguard, Inc. wrote to the Clements that it had reevaluated their relationship with the corporation in light of their recently concluded personal bankruptcy proceeding and had decided it must terminate the relationship immediately. The letter stated that effective immediately the Clements were to cease using the Safeguard name and soliciting Safeguard orders and that Safeguard, Inc. had authorized one Cecily A. Kirkland to take over their territory. Safeguard, Inc. proposed aiding the Clements in this transition by paying them certain commissions over the next 60 days provided they, among other things, transferred to Safeguard, Inc. the post office box used by them in their distributorship.

8. By letter dated October 11, 199l, the Clements' attorneys wrote Safeguard, Inc. stating that they would not turn over the post office box (or otherwise cooperate in the transition) without "due compensation."

9. This mail dispute was initiated on October 8, 199l, by Cecily Kirkland's filing with the Postmaster a change of address order on P. O. Box 6927 purporting to change the address of mail addressed to Safeguard Business Systems at that box to P. O. Box 2145, Brownwood, TX, and by presenting to the Postmaster a letter from Safeguard, Inc. authorizing her to receive mail addressed to Safeguard Business Systems at P. O. Box 6927.

10. On October 9, 199l, the Clements wrote to the Postmaster objecting to her allowing Cecily Kirkland, who was not the owner of the box, to file a change of address on P. O. Box 6927 and requesting that any mail addressed to Safeguard Business Systems or Clements Company Safeguard Business Systems at that box be delivered as addressed. Because of the conflicting claims to control of mail with the name Safeguard Business Systems included in the address and the failure of the parties to appoint a third party to receive such mail, the Postmaster advised the parties she was holding the disputed mail pending decision by the Chief Field Counsel.

11. Since neither the Postmaster nor the Office of Field Legal Services was able to resolve the dispute, the matter was forwarded to the Judicial Officer Department in accordance with DMM § 153.72.

12. Under date of September 23, 199l, Safeguard, Inc. notified its customers that Cecily Kirkland is its distributor in the Abilene area, that the Clements are no longer affiliated with Safeguard, Inc., and that they should change the reorder address to P. O. Box 2145, Brownwood, TX 76804.

DMM § 951.122 defines the "box customer" as (a) the person who signs the application as an individual or (b) the organization on whose behalf an individual signs the application. In this case Cathy Clement is the box customer since she signed the application as an individual and not in a representative capacity for Safeguard, Inc.

Under DMM § 159.211 only the customer, or his agent, has the right to file a change-of-address order. Although the Clements were a distributor for Safeguard, Inc., the corporation, was not the customer of P. O. Box 6927, nor the customer's agent, and had no right, through Cecily Kirkland, or otherwise, to order a change of address for mail addressed to that box.

The rules relating to delivery of mail are intended to cause mail to reach the destination intended by the sender. l Op. Solic. P. O. Dept. No. 287 at p. 713 (1882).

DMM § 153.11(a) provides that the addressee controls the delivery of his mail and, in the absence of a contrary order, the mail is delivered as addressed. The mail in dispute is addressed to Safeguard Business Systems or Clements Company Safeguard Business Systems. Therefore, I conclude that the bulk of the disputed mail is intended for the distributorship formerly run by disputants Clement in those names, not for disputant Safeguard, Inc., and should be delivered as addressed.

This decision determines only the right to delivery, not the ownership, of the disputed mail. It is possible, because of the termination of the Clements' distributorship, that much of the disputed mail belongs to Safeguard, Inc. Accordingly, disputants Clement are responsible to assuring that mail received at P. O. Box 6927 belonging to Safeguard Business Systems, Inc. is forwarded to the corporation or its designee.

The attached proposed order should be issued.