I’m a lawyer (though admittedly not in Canada!)–this doesn’t sound as absurd as the headlines read, and I would hesitate to to form opinions on any case on the basis of headlines or blurbs. That said, looking at other sources it seems there’s more here than the posted article conveys:
The judge noted that Mr. Achter and Mr. Mickleborough had had a longstanding business relationship and that, in the past, when Mr. Mr. Mickleborough had texted Mr. Achter contracts for durum wheat, Mr. Achter had responded by succinctly texting “looks good,” “ok” or “yup.”
Both parties clearly understood these terse responses were meant to be confirmation of the contract and “not a mere acknowledgment of the receipt of the contract” by Mr. Achter, wrote Justice T.J. Keene of the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan. And each time, Mr. Achter had delivered the grain as contracted and had been paid.
Looks like they had a long standing business relationship where this sort of communication had been the common understood form of acceptance in the past. It’s also important to note the guy only tried backing out of the deal after a price fluctuation meant he’d be taking a relative loss.
I’d want to see all of the facts and arguments, but this seems reasonable from what we can see reported.
Yup makes sense to me, very much in line with my laymans understanding of contract law. It’s very driven by social context as it is. I wonder how that differs somewhere like Japan where official seals are expected even for minor documents.
Sounds like everyone involved was making moves to commit to it initially which was probably the biggest factor here.
I’d be interested as well, and it’s actually a bit of an open question in the US even whether an emoji can satisfy Statute of Frauds requirements. Not every contract needs to be in writing, but the Statute of Frauds requires that certain types of contracts do need to have a written contract and agreement–sale of goods valued more than $500.00 is one of those categories. Canada has its own various Statute of Frauds laws, but that’s way outside of my jurisdiction, and I can’t tell from the reporting whether any applied or were considered in this case.
Emojis are the focus of more and more litigation these days, and it’s really interesting watching how these cases play out. Here’s a good source (US focused) from Lexis Nexis discussing emojis in contract litigation:
To be honest, I find this equally stupid (or not) as handshakes being legally binding.
Agreed. If verbal agreements and handshake deals can be legally binding contracts, I don’t see why emoji wouldn’t be.
So, er, what does a poop emoji mean?
What about a middle finger, is that a no?
I’m sure this won’t have unfortunate knock on effects 😬
Grimacing face is now considered an admission of guilt, law enforcement will be there promptly. 🚨
👍
We need all sorts of new legal definitions now:
🤔🤮🖕💩😆🥰🤢🥲😜😡🤬🥶🤡🥸
Apparently “💩” has been the official answer from Twitter’s press relationship contact for some months now… would be funny if it got considered as they’re making legal statements.
There are other sources for this article out there, but this was the best one I could find where the headline specified “Canada”.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/07/business/farmer-contract-thumbs-up-emoji/index.html
