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.
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.
Agree in that while verbally is fully a contract it is hard to verify unless recorded and possibly witnessed. Point being it is as legal as a written which many people do not understand.
As for the thumb up emoji, this particular person has used it in past and had a history of using it to approve services. In that context I think it is fully legitimate to hold him to it. Barring that, yes I agree on most cases it will not suffice as a legal document. It is much the same way a China often uses English for legal contracts as their written language has too many interpretations.
As for the thumb up emoji, this particular person has used it in past and had a history of using it to approve services. In that context I think it is fully legitimate to hold him to it.
I think this is the key. Since he has used the thumbs up in the past to agree to a contract, he’s fully aware of the connotations of using it. Had there not been that understanding, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt.
👍 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.
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.
👍
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”
👍
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.
