251
Farmer ordered to pay after judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance (www.theglobeandmail.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 years ago (3 children)

"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.

When it comes down to it, is the thumbs up emoji really that different than a "yes," "X," or a signature? In the past people just gave their mark when agreeing to something and it doesn't appear that there were any standards as to what that mark would be. If someone hands you a contract and you write an 'X' on the signature line, how does that differ from an actual signature?

Letters and language are meant to convey meaning and it seems that meaning was conveyed here. Someone else also commented that this person had a history of using the emoji to agree to things which just lends further credence to my point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I think the argument is that both parties need to be clear that they understand what an acceptable form of approval would be. If that's an "x", or a signature, or a verbal approval, great, but both parties need to agree to this.

    In this case, it's clear that the defendant didn't intend to use the thumbs up as an approval of the contract, so the courts should have been on his side.

    Plus, for an $80,000 contract, you'd think there would be at least another confirmation that the order was placed or to confirm a day/time that delivery would be made? It almost feels like the plaintiff was banking on tricking the defendant into agreeing to something by accident, rather than being a professional about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    The buyer, Kent Mickleborough, later spoke with Swift Current farmer Chris Achter on the phone and texted a picture of a contract to deliver the flax in November, adding “please confirm flax contract.”

    Achter texted back a thumbs-up emoji. But when November came around, the flax was not delivered and prices for the crop had increased.

    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.

    I think it's pretty clear he did intend the emoji to mean he agreed to the contract as he'd done this multiple times prior. It seems the only difference in this instance is that when it came time to deliver, the market price was higher meaning he could sell it for more money if that contract didn't exist. If he had no intention of following through and that the emoji only meant he "acknowledged receiving the contract", why didn't he ever once indicate his intent to the buyer in the 5 months between receiving the contract and the delivery date (which was outlined in the contract as indicated in the article).

    You claim you suspect the plaintiff was trying to trick the defendant (by agreeing to give him $80k for grain?) but to me it seems like the opposite. It seems like the defendent was trying to give himself room to weasel out of the agreement if it meant more money in his pocket and by giving a someone ambiguous response, attempted to set up plausible deniability if it ever came to this. It didn't work out for him though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •