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.
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.
So in America we have lawyer dawg, and in Canada we have the 👍 contract. Fantastic legal systems. 🙄
💩
