Text message thumbs-up emoji proves contract: Canadian court

Text message thumbs-up emoji proves contract: Canadian court

Text message thumbs-up emoji proves contract: Canadian court

The legality of a contract was recently confirmed by a court in Canada on the basis of a “thumbs up” or “” 👍 emoji that was used by one of the parties in a text message. The Court determined that this emoji suggested that the party had authorised the contract, which led the Court to conclude that the contract was genuine. The case was called South West Terminal Ltd. v. Achter Land & Cattle Ltd.

The ruling was issued by Judge TJ Keene of the King’s Bench for Saskatchewan, who also made a statement on the necessity for today’s courts to be prepared to deal with any new difficulties that may develop as a result of the widespread usage of emojis in today’s society.

The judge commented, “I agree that this case is novel (at least in Saskatchewan), but nevertheless this Court cannot (nor should it) attempt to stem the tide of technology and common usage – this appears to be the new reality in Canadian society and courts will have to be ready to meet the new challenges that may arise from the use of emojis and the like.”

In the current instance, the order was issued after it was observed that there was a consistent pattern of the parties entering into what both of them recognised and accepted to be legal contracts that bind them. This pattern was observed before the order was issued.

“I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that Chris (the defendant’s agent) okayed or accepted the contract exactly as he had done before only this time he used an 👍emoji…………………………………………………………… The court came to the conclusion that “In my opinion, a reasonable bystander who was aware of all of the background information would arrive at the objective understanding that the parties had reached consensus ad item – a meeting of the minds – just like they had done on a great number of other occasions.”

The judge also took note of other cases in which the defendant answered to contracts with similarly brief language, such as “looks good,” “ok,” or “yup,” and then went on to fulfil their obligations under the agreement.

“It was abundantly evident to both parties that the terse words in question were intended to be a confirmation of the contract, and not merely an acknowledgement of the receipt of the contract by Chris. Because the evidence clearly demonstrates that this is the case, there is no other explanation that can be considered credible or rational,” the judgement stated.

The agreement to provide flax was the subject of the dispute that was brought before the court.

The plaintiff said that the defendants and themselves had entered into a purchase agreement for flax weighing 87 metric tonnes with a postponed delivery provision. On the other hand, the defendant did not supply any, which prompted the plaintiff to make a motion to the court.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for breach of contract, requesting damages in the sum of $82,200.21 in addition to interest and expenses.

The defendant said that there was no contract between the parties since there was no note, memorandum, or other record of the agreement that was written or signed by any party.

The plaintiff mentioned that its agent had communicated with the defendant by sending a photograph of a signed contract along with the instruction “please confirm flax contract.”

It was reported that in response to this, the defendant’s representative had texted a “thumbs up” (👍) emoji.

On the other hand, the defendant argued that the emoji served solely to acknowledge receipt of the contract.

In a deposition, the defendant stated that “the full terms and conditions of the Flax Contract were not sent to me,” and that she “understood that the complete contract would follow by fax or email for me to review and sign”

In order to reach a verdict on the issue, the court considered both the emoji’s definition in the dictionary and the judge’s own interpretation of the character based on how it is used in everyday life. In the end, the judge came to the conclusion that the emoji conveyed approbation.

“Chris wants the court to believe that the emoji indicated just he obtained the contract, but not that he authorised the deal. This ends up being somewhat of a case where he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He made the observation that “this is of course somewhat self-serving.”

In addition, the judgement said that while if a signature is traditionally used to affirm an individual’s identity and the terms of an agreement, this does not exclude the use of 👍 emojis or other forms of digital signatures in the present day.

“This court readily acknowledges that a 👍 emoji is a non-traditional means to’sign’ a document,” the court said. “However, under these circumstances, this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a’signature’ — to identify the signator (Chris using his unique cell phone number), and as I have found above — to convey Achter’s acceptance of the flax contract.” Chris used his unique cell phone number to sign the document.

Following this, the court came to the conclusion that there was really an enforceable contract, which was then broken by the defendant. As compensation for this violation, the court decided to pay the plaintiffs damages of $82,200.21.