Canadian judge rules the thumbs up emoji counts as a contract agreement
A Canadian judge has ruled that the popular “thumbs-up” emoji not only can be used as a contract agreement, but is just as valid as an actual signature. The Saskatchewan-based judge made the ruling on the grounds that the courts must adapt to the “new reality” of how people communicate, as originally reported by The Guardian.
I wonder if they will take emoji cultural context into consideration? What about subcultures?
To my metal friends, 🤘 that could be yes. Hippy-ish folx hit me with ✌️
Well firstly case ruling is more thumbs up emoji does count in this very specific case*. It isn’t universal ruling, but very specific ruling tied to the circumstances of the case regarding existing business relationship, previous communication about the contract, the actual sending of contract and then being asked to confirm he is happy with the actual final contract and confirms it. Process that had happened many times before regarding various produce delivery contracts. Only this time he messaged back thumbs up instead of writing into the chat “Yeah, I agree”, “that contract is okay” or so on.
They now argue, no i just thumbed up on “I received the file”. But court said, you were specifically asked to confirm and displayed positive signal. Reasonable person could assume you meant “Yes, I confirm”.
So no not every thumbs up is contract agreement. Someone sends you out of the blue a contract and you message back thumbs up, it isn’t contract agreement. context matters.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDskB84_r0
Here is a video by a Canadian Lawyer explaining the case.
We live in a time where a contract can be signed thusly:
👁️👄👁️👍
What a time to be alive. Say, is that cryogenically preserved millionaire still… ye’know, preserved?
The case involved a grain buyer sending out a mass text to drum up clients and a farmer agreeing to sell 86 tons of flax for around $13 per bushel. The buyer texted a contract agreement to the farmer and asked for the farmer to “confirm” receiving the contract. He issued a thumb’s up emoji as receipt of the document, but backed out of the deal after flax prices increased.
The buyer sued the farmer, arguing that the thumb’s up represented more than just receipt of the contract. It represented an agreement to the conditions of the contract, and a judge agreed, ordering the farmer to cough up nearly $62,000, likely causing a string of puke emojis.
What a bunch of horseshit. I can see a thumbs-up emoji being used as an explicit sign of confirmation, but even in the context, the farmer never indicated any willingness to sign the contract. Receiving a contract and signing a contract are two entirely different things.
On three proper occasions, the broker had sent a contract in basically the same way with basically the same vague “did you get it” language.
The farmers responded with “looks good,” “okay,” and “yup.” Every time, they delivered the flax. The only real difference was the move from “ok” to an emoji indicating the same sentiment. In a case like this, you have no choice but to go with who’s more likely to be right between two parties making their arguments, and it’s completely reasonable to side with the broker here.
Court made the correct call. I don’t see much difference between this case and a verbal agreement.
If someone sends you a contract, you don’t acknowledge receipt with “sounds good” because you would rightly be taken as agreeing to the terms.
PopBobert
Sjatar
Willie
Vree
MxM111
wjrii
Meow.tar.gz
Frog-Brawler
eroc1990
CrazyEddie041
JohnEdwa
Undearius
deegeese