People, the defendant had a history of using 👍to accept a contract with the aggrieved. Had done it NP a dozen times before. He was trying to use a technicality to weasel out of breaching a contract he obviously agreed to when he couldn’t fulfill it.
Not only that but by the end of the contract price was up, so farmer would not make as much as on the free market.
Did the article actually say he accepted with thumbs up before? Thought it just said he’d accepted via text.
The point is that now there’s a precedent and going forward, that emoji counts as a signature
Not quite, and for 2 reasons:
- I’m not sure if it is the same in Canada, but in the US it is only a ‘precedent’ if ruled by an appeals court, and
- The Judge found the Defendant had a history of tersely accepting agreed upon (by later full completion of) contracts. If, for example you had texted me a similar contract and historically when you did I typically answered “yes, I agree to these contract details. Expect Flax in the Fall”, but one time I texted 👍and then a day later said “nah, I don’t agree to this contract” you’d have a case but I’d almost certainly win under the same Judge because now the argument ‘the 👍 was just confirming receipt but not approval of the contract’ holds water.
I don’t think this is particularly surprising. Handshakes can form legal contracts, and contracts can be formed orally. There’s no reason why an image couldn’t indicate acceptance of a contract, generally speaking (certain specific types of contract may require additional formalities).
Handshakes can form legal contracts, and contracts can be formed orally.
While true, these are terrible forms of contract agreement for anything of value, and specifically when there are no witnesses. One person could easily claim that “I heard them say something else” or “We didn’t shake on anything!”.
As for emojis, you can interpret them in 101 ways, and that’s assuming both parties are using the same emoji icon set! Some look different depending on the platform, and some have completely different meanings without even knowing it! When I get an emoji on my business email, it doesn’t even show up as an emoji!
A “thumbs up”, in my book, is not an agreement to a contract. I want a clear written acknowledgement and/or a signature. Anything less could be hard to prove or completely denied as even happening.
Completely agree, and anyone with any foresight would insist on something more robust. But very often the courts have to deal with situations where the parties did not have that foresight and instead proceeded to do business with one another on the basis of informal or very flimsily documented arrangements. And it falls to the court to look at what little evidence there is and determine (to the extent they can) whether there was an agreement and, if so, what the agreement entailed.
You would actually be surprised just how much business is conducted like this.
You would actually be surprised just how much business is conducted like this.
I’m sure I’d be surprised!
To be honest, I feel that the defendant’s argument that “I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.”, is valid, since he interpreted the thumbs up as a sign of acknowledgement, not an acceptance to the contract.
The courts, however, used a third party’s interpretation of what the emoji could mean, which I don’t think was right.
“Achter’s lawyers argued that allowing an emoji to act as a signature or acceptance for contracts would open the flood gates for cases interpreting the meaning of the images.”
I totally agree with that sentiment.
Imagine texting your spouse various food emojis, including an eggplant, hot dog, banana, and peach, as you were at the grocery store. Your spouse comes back with a thumb’s up emoji. Would the courts say that the spouse was agreeing to consensual sex or a shopping list? There are so many ways I can see this ruling creating problems where none currently exist.
Would the courts say that the spouse was agreeing to consensual sex or a shopping list?
Context matters and I’d call this a straw man argument.
Context matters and I’d call this a straw man argument.
What context would the court need to give them enough information to pass a judgment?
Context 1) Spouse at the grocery store: “I was at the grocery store, felt horny, and texted my wife some emojis that implied some sexy time later. She replied with a thumbs up!”
Context 2) Spouse who received the text: “My husband, who was at the grocery store, texted me food emojis, which I thought was a grocery list, so I gave them a thumbs up to approve the list!”.
In the specific case given by the OP, the person who sent the thumbs up said that they did so to acknowledge the receipt of the contract, not that they approved the contract. That would be enough context for me to understand that they did not intend to use the thumbs up to “sign” the contract.
It should have been up to the court to recognized that unless both parties understand the method of agreement for this given contract, that it could not have possibly been binding.
The article further states that the defendent had agreed to many previous contracts in such a manner.
No one has a fucking contract for consensual sex you incel. Plus you obviously have never participated in any kind of contract or business relationship. You typically do not need to have a signed, witnesses and notarized contract for “routine” business relationships and it’s obvious in this case that they had an existing relationship that the farmer was trying to back-out of because he figured out he could make more money elsewhere.
For your final point
It should have been up to the court to recognized that unless both parties understand the method of agreement for this given contract, that it could not have possibly been binding.It was, and based on the prexisting business relationship and prior contracts agreed to via text, it was OBVIOUS that the “thumbs up” was intended to confirm the informal agreement.Calm down, buddy.
Consensual sex requires a clear YES, or else it’s a NO. Is a thumbs up a yes? Even if the “yes” was for something totally out of context? Do you see why relying on an Emoji is simply too vague to be serious?
Plus you obviously have never participated in any kind of contract or business relationship.
Hundreds of professional transactions worth millions of dollars. Large orders REQUIRE a company issued purchase order with specific dates for delivery, billing and shipping addresses clearly listed, a refernce to a quote (if one was given), and a contact person. It does not need to be signed, but most are, depending on where it’s coming from.
I’ve never heard of a professional business using Emojis to conduct business or to sign off on large contracts.
it’s obvious in this case that they had an existing relationship that the farmer
Yes, this is something i clearly missed/misread, so my understanding of this case is notably inaccurate. Totally my bad. 🤦♂️
The article did not say that he had ever used 👍 previously in text to accept a contract. It says that according to the guy who sued him, he had responded through text message in the past to accept a contract.
“Achter’s lawyers argued that allowing an emoji to act as a signature or acceptance for contracts would open the flood gates for cases interpreting the meaning of the images.”
I totally agree with that sentiment.
When it comes down to it, is the thumbs up emoji really that different than a “yes,” “X,” or a signature? In the past people just gave their mark when agreeing to something and it doesn’t appear that there were any standards as to what that mark would be. If someone hands you a contract and you write an ‘X’ on the signature line, how does that differ from an actual signature?
Letters and language are meant to convey meaning and it seems that meaning was conveyed here. Someone else also commented that this person had a history of using the emoji to agree to things which just lends further credence to my point.
I think the argument is that both parties need to be clear that they understand what an acceptable form of approval would be. If that’s an “x”, or a signature, or a verbal approval, great, but both parties need to agree to this.
In this case, it’s clear that the defendant didn’t intend to use the thumbs up as an approval of the contract, so the courts should have been on his side.
Plus, for an $80,000 contract, you’d think there would be at least another confirmation that the order was placed or to confirm a day/time that delivery would be made? It almost feels like the plaintiff was banking on tricking the defendant into agreeing to something by accident, rather than being a professional about it.
The buyer, Kent Mickleborough, later spoke with Swift Current farmer Chris Achter on the phone and texted a picture of a contract to deliver the flax in November, adding “please confirm flax contract.”
Achter texted back a thumbs-up emoji. But when November came around, the flax was not delivered and prices for the crop had increased.
Mickleborough said the emoji amounted to an agreement because he had texted numerous contracts to Achter, who previously confirmed through text message and always fulfilled the order.
I think it’s pretty clear he did intend the emoji to mean he agreed to the contract as he’d done this multiple times prior. It seems the only difference in this instance is that when it came time to deliver, the market price was higher meaning he could sell it for more money if that contract didn’t exist. If he had no intention of following through and that the emoji only meant he “acknowledged receiving the contract”, why didn’t he ever once indicate his intent to the buyer in the 5 months between receiving the contract and the delivery date (which was outlined in the contract as indicated in the article).
You claim you suspect the plaintiff was trying to trick the defendant (by agreeing to give him $80k for grain?) but to me it seems like the opposite. It seems like the defendent was trying to give himself room to weasel out of the agreement if it meant more money in his pocket and by giving a someone ambiguous response, attempted to set up plausible deniability if it ever came to this. It didn’t work out for him though.
Holy actual shit, this entire time i thought the thumbs up guy was the BUYER, not the seller! LOL That makes way more sense, now 😂
I think the personal historical context between the two parties is the important part here. Reading the article, I get the impression that this was not the first instance of these two conducting business in this way.
If the buyer has previous experience with the seller responding to a contract with a thumbs up and then processing to fulfill that contact, why wouldn’t they interpret that as acceptance in this case?
To use your own analogy, it would be like a couple who regularly texts 🍌🍆🥒🌭🍑🌋💧🏔️ - 👍 to indicate sexy times having one party reinterpret that meaning suddenly when it’s convenient for them.
A single character emoji could easily be a typo as well.
👍 can also be sarcastic, like your contract is so dumb, I’m not even properly replying to it. Such a dumb ruling.
Don’t make snap judgements about rulings. Especially just on article titles. In this particular case the defendant had a history of using 👍to accept a contract. Had done it NP a dozen times before. He was trying to use a technicality to weasel out of breaching a contract when he couldn’t fulfill it.
I wonder what amount of damages he was ordered to pay?
$82000CAD
Oof.
In this particular case the defendant had a history of using 👍to accept a contract. Had done it NP a dozen times before
The article doesn’t say that. It says that according to the guy who sued him, he used text message before to accept a contract. It doesn’t say that he had ever responded to a contract with a thumbs up emoji before.
“Mickleborough said the emoji amounted to an agreement because he had texted numerous contracts to Achter, who previously confirmed through text message and always fulfilled the order.”
No mention of thumbs up emoji having been used prior to this particular thumbs up emoji incident.
As such, to decide what the thumbs up emoji meant in this case, Justice Keene of the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench considered how the farmer had communicated with the grain buyer in the past. Typically, the grain buyer would text a photo of the contract to the farmer and ask him to confirm the contract. The farmer would then text back, saying “looks good”, “ok”, or “yup”. The grain buyer and farmer would then proceed on the basis they had a contract. The farmer’s brief affirmative responses therefore meant agreement, not mere acknowledgement of receipt.
Justice Keene found that “👍” [thumbs up] was equivalent to the farmer’s previous responses like “looks good”, “ok”, and “yup”, which all signified agreement. As such, the farmer had entered into a valid and binding contract with the grain buyer. https://www.mckercher.ca/resources/rule-of-thumb-can-an-emoji-be-a-signature
You’ve got a point, there’s some danger here, but I would have zero sympathy if someone ignored the fact that sarcasm isn’t communicated well in text.
I don’t know, I think a thumbs up is clear acceptance tbh.
deleted by creator
👍
That’ll be $82,000 to the federation.
/s
👍
👍
👍
According to the courts you agree with this post and have not simply read the post.
“I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.”
This is what the 👀 emoji is for, is it not? “I am acknowledging seeing this.”
That’s not really how 👀 is used these days among the young folk, but I wouldn’t expect a random Canadian farmer to know that either.
I don’t think that a thumbs up emoji should be a valid signature. The farmer was responding to “please confirm flax contract” and the thumbs up emoji really could mean “I’ve seen your text and will look at the contract to confirm/deny soon.” Although the article did also mention that the same type of acceptance had happened previously with this farmer where the contracts were treated as valid and fulfilled so the farmer is probably disingenuous with their argument.
I would use 👀 that way. What else would it be?
It’s alluding to being interested.
Surprise and or shock? Wariness? They look like cartoon eyes on like Wile-E-Coyote or Tom when they realize they’re still holding the dynamite. 🧨 👀 😨
It’s more like “look at this shit”/“you seeing this?”/“whoa” for general stuff. Or sometimes with a slightly inappropriate joke or flirting the eyes acknowledge that and lessen it - like saying jk did back in the day.
In this context if I sent a contract to someone younger and they responded 👀 I might have to doublecheck if something was glaringly wrong with it.
That’s interesting. It’s wild how emojis are actually the closest thing we have to a universal language, but that language is still new enough that meanings are very fluid and open to interpretation.
Many times I’ve gotten the thumbs up as a way to indicate that someone received a message, however it’ll only be read later, it can mean that they’re doing smt at the moment.
Judge should have mandated the legally less ambiguous 🍆💦 combo to agree to a contract
Not according to dictionary.com which the judge referred to for the thumbs up.
They should update the meaning, I also know it as a “read receipt”.
If I was going to read a text and respond to it later, I would just… respond to it later.
Am I out of touch? No, it’s the children who are wrong.
A lot of people hate being “left on read” where they see a programmed read receipt but aren’t actually acknowledged. Or for messages without programmed read receipts it does that as well. The thumbs up is also supposed to end conversations quickly.
It’s very believable that the farmer would not know the difference.
I do business over text in amounts similar to this. I won’t accept a contract with a thumbs up. But a change request, sure.
“Okay, we will ship you a spare set of cables at a cost of $10/day, plus shipping expenses. Please acknowledge this as acceptable”
👍
So in America we have lawyer dawg, and in Canada we have the 👍 contract. Fantastic legal systems. 🙄
💩
It is completely absurd to rule an emoji as an agreement to a contract.
Everything needs proper context. We shouldn’t make decisions based on headlines.
Yes, I read it. Did you? It said:
“Mickleborough said the emoji amounted to an agreement because he had texted numerous contracts to Achter, who previously confirmed through text message and always fulfilled the order.”
It does not say that the argument was made that he previously agreed to a contract through text message _ by sending a single 👍_.
This is the context we have through the article, and so no, a single emoji as a binding contract is ridiculous.
Even when he’d accepted contract numerous times before using that exact emoji?
According to the article:
“Mickleborough said the emoji amounted to an agreement because he had texted numerous contracts to Achter, who previously confirmed through text message and always fulfilled the order.”
It does not say he accepted any contracts in the past using that emoji. It says that according to the guy who sued him, he has accepted contracts through text message.
What exactly does acceptance look like to you? He was offered a contract, gave it a thumbs up, and delivered the goods for the price specified in the contract. It would be ridiculous NOT to treat that as accepting the contract.
What exactly does acceptance look like to you? He was offered a contract, gave it a thumbs up, and delivered the goods for the price specified in the contract. It would be ridiculous NOT to treat that as accepting the contract.
Will you clarify: “He was offered a contract, gave it a thumbs up, and delivered the goods for the price specified in the contract.”?
The article says he didn’t deliver the goods for the price after sending a thumbs up.
This time. He had followed the pattern of contract offer, thumbs up, contract fulfilled numerous times before.
The article doesn’t say that. It says that according to the guy who sued him, he used text message before to accept a contract. It doesn’t say that he had ever responded to a contract with a thumbs up emoji before.
“Mickleborough said the emoji amounted to an agreement because he had texted numerous contracts to Achter, who previously confirmed through text message and always fulfilled the order.”
No mention of thumbs up emoji having been used prior to this particular thumbs up emoji incident. Are you referencing an alternate source?
I think I must be, because I don’t have access to the Globe. Perhaps this event was posted a couple of times and I read it elsewhere.
It should be noted that it doesn’t actually say anywhere that this 👍 emoji, had been used by this farmer to signal assent to contracts previously. What it does say in the article, is that they’d previously received contracts in this way via text before and fulfilled them.
However, personally I don’t think that really makes a lot of difference, maybe some but not a lot. This court decision is not exactly a ruling that emojis are signatures so much as it’s upholding the idea that there are forms of contract acceptance other than the traditional signing of a written contract and these exist for exactly reasons like these and to protect people from bad faith acceptance of contracts with the later intention to deny such acceptance.
Without the prior context of previous texts with or without emoji confirmation, this mightn’t have stood, but with it, it makes perfect sense. In the absence of a more clear cut and binding form of acceptance that would normally settle such a matter more easily like a witnessed signature on some physical paper, the court has to use the behaviour of the people involved and this farmer behaved in a way very similar to both their own previous behaviour that indeed had signalled contract acceptance as well as a commonly understood 3rd party indication of assent. Even if the farmer’s own explanation of miscommunication were true, and they were just signalling that they’d seen the contract, sure it sucks for them, but it’s their fault for both establishing a pattern where these types of important negotiations were conducted in this manner and also somehow failing to account for common understanding. It might seem unfair to be on the hook for something just because you thought an emoji meant something else, but imagine how much it sucks to deal with someone who’s understanding of common forms of communication is some separate and arcane private interpretation totally unbeknownst to you and when they use well understood signals of assent they actually meant something totally different. “Oh, I guess I should have known” hmmmm.
Maybe for an $82000 contract they should have taken the time to be a little more clear-headed in their communication in which case they might have realised how ambiguous it might be to respond with something they think means “YES I’ve received your contract” in the context where only the YES portion might actually be what’s heard. They certainly understood it was some kind of confirmation even if not what they meant and they did nothing to clarify what they were confirming. He said he didn’t have time to look at the contract and just seems to have quickly responded with this but frankly that’s pretty flippant behaviour when discussing contracts. For example, they didn’t later review the contract when they did have time and then say “thank you but after reviewing the contract I’ve decided to decline” which, if delivered in a reasonably timely manner might have made a world of difference, but instead they simply didn’t fulfill the contract 8 months later. If previously they hadn’t used this emoji to signal assent, then if anything it should have seemed an even more encouraging sign since previously simply receiving the contract via text had been enough before and now he’s doing that and saying “👍”.
Without the ability for such additional context to be considered that truly would open up floodgates for people to weasel out of obligations by subverting the intent of law by trying to use the letter of it. Imagine if someone hired you, sent you a contract with agreed rates, discussed a job with you sent communication back and forth during your employment and granted you access to the work site day in and day out and then at the end of the contract announced that you should have paid attention to the fact that although a contract was sent they didn’t actually sign it and so technically you were never really hired and were just volunteering this whole time. It’d be very important for all the surrounding context to be able to stand in for and legally imply contract acceptance or there’d be all manner of fuckery.
