Just heard about this last night on the WAN show. That’s just nuts.

While the novelty of accepting a contract through emojis is pretty goofy, judges applying contract law to hold people to commercial promises like this is otherwise a pretty run-of-the-mill thing, even when the promise was over text.

It’s a little wild that they’re going to bind contracts by text. Last thing I need is someone replying for me because I’m busy, and now I’m in a contract.

The problem is that he had set the precedent. If you have the clear precedent that the text is only acknowledging that the contract is ready for you to look over then the judge would've likely ruled the other way.

If you're diligent that you always properly actually sign the contracts, that you're never giving final confirmation by way of a one word text. Then it's unlikely you'd get legally binding in this situation.

Besides, in this case the farmer was definitely in the wrong. He was trying to pull a sneaky because the cash price was over double the contract price at time of delivery. It wouldn't be any different if he had properly signed the contract except that he couldn't try the "but I never actually signed it" excuse.

He should've just ate the contract cancelation fee if he wanted to ride the crazy price. Plenty of other people did just that and there was minimal legal shenanigans involved.

I think people need to have notorized signatures for it to be a legally binding agreement. He should be free to change his mind on anything that doesn’t have his notorized signature, regardless of the past.