Be careful with emoji, because they are legally binding in Canada
Be careful how you emoji in the future, after a Canadian judge ruled that sending someone a "thumbs-up" symbol in a message can potentially enter you into a legally binding contract.
![[Pixabay]](https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/55278-112296-contract-emoji-pixabay-xl.jpg)
[Pixabay]
The King's Bench for Saskatchewan issued a summary judgment on June 8 that could have serious implications for users of messaging services. While they may not necessarily be seen as serious communications, it's possible for responses to be taken as agreeing to the terms of a contract.
In the lawsuit between South West Terminal and Achter Land & Cattle, reports the Guardian, a grain buyer in South West Terminal sent a mass text message to clients in March 2021, saying the company was willing to buy 86 tonnes of flax for C$17 ($12.73) per bushel.
Farmer Chris Achter spoke to the buyer over the phone about the request. The buyer then sent an image of a contract to Achter about the delivery of flax in November of that year, asking the farmer to "please confirm flax contract" in the message.
Achter responded with a thumbs-up emoji, and that's where the confusion lies. The farmer claimed in the lawsuit that the symbol was intended to mean he had received the contract in the message, while the buyer believed it was Achter agreeing to the contract.
"I deny that he accepted the thumbs-up emoji as a digital signature of the incomplete contract," Achter told the court. "I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message."
South West Terminal offered that there had been previous instances where contracts were handled and agreed upon with the emoji.
Ultimately, because of the confusion, the farmer failed to make the delivery to South West.
Justice Timothy Keene mentions in the ruling that the disagreement on what the emoji meant led to a "far flung search for the equivalent of the Rosetta Stone in cases from Israel, New York State, and some tribunals in Canada, etc. to unearth what [the emoji] means."
The court eventually determined that the thumbs-up emoji is a "non-traditional means to sign' a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a signature."
While the affair gives one emoji a legally-definable meaning in one court in Canada at least, the judge doesn't believe it would "open up the flood gates" to other emojis being interpreted in such legal means. However, he also said the court cannot and shouldn't "attempt to stem the tide of technology and common usage" of emojis.
Due to the ruling by Justice Keene, Achter has been ordered to pay C$82,000 ($61,442) to South West Terminal for failing to fulfill the contract.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
“A signature may be made (i) manually or by means of a device or machine, and (ii) by the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present intention to authenticate a writing.”
Also the idea that judges only interpret laws in the US and do not make law is incorrect as any student who has taken Business Law 101 should be able to tell you. In fact judges create more law than legislatures and it is called the “common law”. The only difference with a law passed by a legislature is that where there is conflict the law passed by the legislature will override the common law, but the common law fills all the gaps and details that the legislated law doesn’t explicitly address. Also there are no common law crimes in the US.
Eh? 👎
Eh?
Makes me think the judge must be a younger person who didn't live a long life before emoji existed.
Definitely a ruling that needs to be overturned.
But this is Canada we're talking about, so I guess it comes as no huge surprise.
While I am not from Canada, I have a very good friend who lives there. He is constantly telling me surprising things that go on there. Not merely surprising to me, but to him as well. Perhaps he has more disappointment than surprise, but he nonetheless has to live with a lot of insanity that I do not. Hence, my prior remarks regarding the next door neighbor to my country of birth was rooted firmly in that knowledge. If that offends you, I would say you are a bit too sensitive. Life is hard. We need be less sensitive and toughen up. When you're less offended, you're happier.
As to my remarks about the judge, I stand firmly behind them. The length of our life and our life experiences shape us in good and bad ways. The ruling is clearly flawed, so we must take some guesses as to what that judge was thinking. Something obviously skewed the judge's thinking to rule in such a ridiculous manner, it seems only logical that judge is placing an unusually high significance on emoji, something a much older person would likely not do, despite knowing emojis are in wide use today. As such, my comments were not out of place at all, even if they are speculation.
I do wish to thank you because you made me reflect on what I wrote, and that helped me to see I do not need to second guess myself at all. I stand firmly behind the content of my previous post.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/07/business/farmer-contract-thumbs-up-emoji/index.html
“…in March 2021, grain purchasers with South West Terminal, Ltd., sent a text message to grain suppliers wanting to buy flax for $17 per bushel for delivery in October, November, or December of that year. After phone calls with farmers Bob and Chris Achter, SWT drafted a contract for Chris Achter to sell SWT 86 metric tons of flax for $17 a bushel and deliver the flax in November…”
“…The SWT representative said in court documents he had done at least four other contracts with Achter via text. He said the only difference this time was Achter responded with a “thumbs-up” emoji instead of “ok”, “yup” or “looks good.”…”