[...] But this is Canada we're talking about, so I guess it comes as no huge surprise.
Damn, man, you're on a roll today...
Thank you!
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.
Well, I’m American and there are plenty of surprising things that go on here.
Looking at the ruling, let’s go through it: First, can a text message be considered legally binding? Presumably the answer is yes.
Second, Emojis are forms of communication. Should the communication in a text message be ignored or disallowed simply because it contains an emoji? I would say no. The question then becomes what was the context, meaning, intent and reasonable interpretations of the message. Like other forms of communication, emoji can be ambiguous. That was the case here. One party sent a message with the contract saying ‘please confirm.’ The receiving party sent a thumbs up. Receiving party claims thumbs up was simply indicating he got the message while the sending party took it as confirmation and agreement to the contract.
What would people be saying if the recipient had said ‘OK?’ Does that mean “ok, I got the contract and will look it over” or “Ok I agree?” In this case, the thumbs up emoji means ‘ok’ and is ambiguous. The fact that it’s an emoji makes the case a bit unique but ultimately this is about communicating clearly and in this context the person who sent the thumbs up emoji did not do so. The question then becomes which interpretation was more reasonable and on whom lies the responsibility for clarifying. Clearly they decided the fault lay with the farmer.
This judge needs to have his head examined. Unless the document or an existing law states a digital signature or any emoji can be used as a replacement for a hand written signature an emoji doesn’t constitute legal signing. Judges can’t make this stuff up. Judges only interpret laws then can’t make them, at least not in the US.
The story I heard, from a Canadian outlet, is there were many more statements made in the text message stream that led the judge to believe that the emoji signified agreement. It was not just based on the emoji.
Note that I have not seen the actual message stream, I'm just going by what my source said.
[...] But this is Canada we're talking about, so I guess it comes as no huge surprise.
Damn, man, you're on a roll today...
Thank you!
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.
Well, I’m American and there are plenty of surprising things that go on here.
Looking at the ruling, let’s go through it: First, can a text message be considered legally binding? Presumably the answer is yes.
Second, Emojis are forms of communication. Should the communication in a text message be ignored or disallowed simply because it contains an emoji? I would say no. The question then becomes what was the context, meaning, intent and reasonable interpretations of the message. Like other forms of communication, emoji can be ambiguous. That was the case here. One party sent a message with the contract saying ‘please confirm.’ The receiving party sent a thumbs up. Receiving party claims thumbs up was simply indicating he got the message while the sending party took it as confirmation and agreement to the contract.
What would people be saying if the recipient had said ‘OK?’ Does that mean “ok, I got the contract and will look it over” or “Ok I agree?” In this case, the thumbs up emoji means ‘ok’ and is ambiguous. The fact that it’s an emoji makes the case a bit unique but ultimately this is about communicating clearly and in this context the person who sent the thumbs up emoji did not do so. The question then becomes which interpretation was more reasonable and on whom lies the responsibility for clarifying. Clearly they decided the fault lay with the farmer.
It's not the first time a large corporation has been favoured by a legal ruling against a much smaller opponent. This brings to mind the case where PepsiCo was let off the hook because the judge decided that their "7 million points" claim for a Harrier was clearly a joke and could not be interpreted as a serious offer.
Also: why on earth does an order for a metric quantity of a good stipulate a price per imperial quantity? For those unfamiliar, a bushel is 10 pounds and a metric tonne is 2200 pounds: 1kg = 2.2 pounds and a tonne is 1000kg. The calculation is simple in this case and it's hard to overturn centuries of convention, but it's still a surprise to me. Some day all the new equipment will measure in metric and this anachronism will fade.
"South West Terminal offered that there had been previous instances where contracts were handled and agreed upon with the emoji. "
Assuming Canada like Australia inherited a whole bunch of English law then this is the clincher. If in the past he has fulfilled the contract with the same response and no further follow-up other than turning up with the product. Then he is trying to deny past agreements by now saying it was just to say he got it.
Estoppel - one can't deny what is past. or in English-derived legal systems contracts exist to the extent everyone is operating like they exist.
Comments
Looking at the ruling, let’s go through it:
First, can a text message be considered legally binding? Presumably the answer is yes.
Second, Emojis are forms of communication. Should the communication in a text message be ignored or disallowed simply because it contains an emoji? I would say no.
The question then becomes what was the context, meaning, intent and reasonable interpretations of the message. Like other forms of communication, emoji can be ambiguous. That was the case here. One party sent a message with the contract saying ‘please confirm.’ The receiving party sent a thumbs up. Receiving party claims thumbs up was simply indicating he got the message while the sending party took it as confirmation and agreement to the contract.
What would people be saying if the recipient had said ‘OK?’ Does that mean “ok, I got the contract and will look it over” or “Ok I agree?” In this case, the thumbs up emoji means ‘ok’ and is ambiguous. The fact that it’s an emoji makes the case a bit unique but ultimately this is about communicating clearly and in this context the person who sent the thumbs up emoji did not do so. The question then becomes which interpretation was more reasonable and on whom lies the responsibility for clarifying. Clearly they decided the fault lay with the farmer.
Also: why on earth does an order for a metric quantity of a good stipulate a price per imperial quantity? For those unfamiliar, a bushel is 10 pounds and a metric tonne is 2200 pounds: 1kg = 2.2 pounds and a tonne is 1000kg. The calculation is simple in this case and it's hard to overturn centuries of convention, but it's still a surprise to me. Some day all the new equipment will measure in metric and this anachronism will fade.
"
Assuming Canada like Australia inherited a whole bunch of English law then this is the clincher. If in the past he has fulfilled the contract with the same response and no further follow-up other than turning up with the product. Then he is trying to deny past agreements by now saying it was just to say he got it.
Estoppel - one can't deny what is past.
or in English-derived legal systems contracts exist to the extent everyone is operating like they exist.