Saskatchewan judge decides emojis constitute contractual agreement

[urban rednek]

Is it April 1st? Where do they find these fools? (what did I just agree to?)

Unless this decision is challenged and eventually overturned by a higher court, this is going end badly for everyone. This sets a dangerous precedent.

https://calgarysun.com/news/national...e-b633cd4f751c

Farmer ordered to pay after judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance

Canadian Press July 5, 2023

SWIFT CURRENT, Sask. — A Saskatchewan judge says an emoji can amount to a contractual agreement and ordered a farmer pay more than $82,000 for not delivering product to a grain buyer after responding to a text message with a thumbs-up image.

The Court of King’s Bench decision, released in June, found a thumbs-up emoji indicated Chris Achter agreed to a contract to deliver flax to South West Terminal in November 2021.

The company’s grain buyer had sent an image of a contract to Achter through a text message earlier in the year and the Swift Current farmer responded with an emoji.

The farmer argued that the emoji indicated only that he’d received the contract, not that he accepted its terms.

His lawyers argued that allowing an emoji to act as a signature for contracts would open the floodgates for cases interpreting the meaning of the images.

Justice Timothy Keene says in his decision that emojis are the new reality in Canadian society and courts must meet the new challenges that the images will bring.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Well, I could see this being struck down in an appeal.

Maybe the defense can rally some support from e-signature providers (VeriSign, Adobe etc.) to outline how e-signatures work with respect to contractual agreements, regarding what the industry standard is for a legally-binding signature with respect to contracts.

[Dewey Cox]

They had done a contract 4 other times where the response was "yup" or "looks good".
They were ok with confirming a contract this way before.
Funny how when a contract price doesn't age well, suddenly they want out because they didn't sign anything...

[jstubbs]

Sounds like a Justice who wants his name on a precedent setting case.

[Drewski Canuck]

Many commercial transactions are handled informally. There are many supply contracts using standard form wording which are simply faxed over, E Mailed over, sent as PDF attachments, etc.

The issue was proof on a balance of probabilities, the onus on the Plaintiff. It is easy enough for a Defendant to demonstrate that on some occasions he did not proceed with the contract offers from the Plaintiff to unseat the evidentiary burden of proof that then shifts to the Defendant on the prima facie case of the Plaintiff.

On Cross Examination of the Plaintiff before the close of the Plaintiff's case, the Defendant could have pointed out the 4 times that the contract tendered was rejected by the Defendant to say that was not the agreement.

It was of course possible that there was an E Mail Exchange negotiating the price tendered for some other amount, if that is what happened.

In the absence of that, I hope everyone can understand that conduct can be relied upon by the presiding Justice to find an Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration, and an agreement on terms, to find a binding Contract.

These Futures Contracts are typically tied to the payment of money in advance. That is how fuel, fertilizer, and seed is bought by the farmer at the start of the season. If the money was gladly taken, why would the farmer then be allowed to later back out?

Drewski

[tirebob]

I am okay with this decision if the party filing the case was screwed over by the client. If you give someone a thumbs up and are actually agreeing to a deal and then try and welch on it leaving someone else holding the bag, you should be accountable.

Now if there was genuinely a misunderstanding where the one party gave a thumbs up indicating he read the quote but did not actually want the work done and was not confirming, then it is a grey area for sure.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Stinky Buffalo

Well, I could see this being struck down in an appeal.

Maybe the defense can rally some support from e-signature providers (VeriSign, Adobe etc.) to outline how e-signatures work with respect to contractual agreements, regarding what the industry standard is for a legally-binding signature with respect to contracts.

Was a time when an agreement was an agreement.

[Sundancefisher]

The decision as explained makes sense.

Only thing missing for me is when the crop was to be delivered… how soon after it wasn’t delivered on time did someone call to see what’s up.

It’s still a fools game on both sides of an agreement if said agreement is not signed via paper copy as a follow up post texting or email or phone call.

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by Stinky Buffalo

Well, I could see this being struck down in an appeal.

Maybe the defense can rally some support from e-signature providers (VeriSign, Adobe etc.) to outline how e-signatures work with respect to contractual agreements, regarding what the industry standard is for a legally-binding signature with respect to contracts.

Ever dealt with DocuSign? Realtors love it. When we were selling our house, we were sent an amendment to "sign" and I noticed an error in the document. I contacted our realtor and was told to just sign it and they would correct it after.

I was gobsmacked! In my world a digitally signed document can't be altered after it has been signed, and if it is altered you can tell. That is one of the key features of a "real" digital signature.

ARG

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Was a time when an agreement was an agreement.

I will do a handshake deal. I won't do a deal by text message... ever.

ARG

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by tirebob

I am okay with this decision if the party filing the case was screwed over by the client. If you give someone a thumbs up and are actually agreeing to a deal and then try and welch on it leaving someone else holding the bag, you should be accountable.

So what do you mean when you send a thumbs-up emoji? Are you saying "got it, thanks" or are you saying "we have a deal"? If the emoji was the sum total of the message, then I would say it lacks sufficient context to determine what was intended. There is a handshake emoji that would make things clearer.

I wonder what the legal implications of the pile-of-poo emoji is.

ARG

[Pheasantchaser]

IMHO, the judge made the right decision.

When in your life did a "thumbs up" mean anything but acceptance?

Strictly speaking, a pi$$ poor way to do business. Both buyer and seller should know better...and now this mess that should have been avoided.

That's why we have lawyers...

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by Pheasantchaser

IMHO, the judge made the right decision.

When in your life did a "thumbs up" mean anything but acceptance?

Strictly speaking, a pi$$ poor way to do business. Both buyer and seller should know better...and now this mess that should have been avoided.

That's why we have lawyers...

In my life "thumbs up" has never meant acceptance. An acknowledgement sure, but not acceptance. Maybe it's 'cause of only 60.

ARG

[Pheasantchaser]

Really, a lousy way to do business. Again, both buyer and seller should know better, especially with the time frame involved.

You willingly take your chances with the meanings of emojis. Not a risk a good business owner would take.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by Au revoir, Gopher

Ever dealt with DocuSign? Realtors love it. When we were selling our house, we were sent an amendment to "sign" and I noticed an error in the document. I contacted our realtor and was told to just sign it and they would correct it after.

I was gobsmacked! In my world a digitally signed document can't be altered after it has been signed, and if it is altered you can tell. That is one of the key features of a "real" digital signature.

ARG

Yes, that is sketchy for sure. Defeats the purpose of digital signatures, in effect.

I’m sure there was a lot of that going on back in the day when we would scan/fax the amendments back and forth too.

[Looper]

I guarantee you if the price had dropped the seller would've been screaming "thumbs up" is a binding agreement.

It was the right call.

Looper

[urban rednek]

It was a bad decision that needs to be overturned by a higher court.
It is bad enough that they allow ambiguous vocalizations to indicate acceptance of legally binding contracts; this decision opens the door to any image being used. Once this door is opened, there is no limit to the amount of stupid interpretations that will be inflicted by those in the for-profit legal industry.
It will not end well.

The gold standard should be clearly stated acceptance of terms, or no deal.

[macee]

What I don't understand is I've done a lot grain contracts by text can't say I've accepted one with a thumbs up but the buyer always sends a emailed copy of contract after.

[Grizzly Adams1]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Was a time when an agreement was an agreement.

That's why we still have a written language in case there is any doubt.

Grizz

[Drewski Canuck]

Originally Posted by macee

What I don't understand is I've done a lot grain contracts by text can't say I've accepted one with a thumbs up but the buyer always sends a emailed copy of contract after.

Did you always deliver the grain based on the Contract price? Was there multiple transactions over the years between the same buyer and yourself?
Did you ever decline a contract or reject a contract sent to you?

It's not the signature that is relevant, the signature is "evidence" of ACCEPTANCE of the Offer. The same can be demonstrated by "conduct".

But anyway, the reason we sign is proof of our agreement or acceptance. The case in point is a pattern of conduct that was never rejected, and confirmed through the reply, emoji or otherwise.

In my Practice I have dealt with too many bar stool lawyers.

Usually the mother of the divorcing Wife. When they did not like my information on a scenario posed to me, they would argue with me that their Friend's daughter's lawyer said in her Divorce 10 years ago, something different.

When I then would ask why they were speaking to me in the first person when it was actually their Daughter going through the Divorce, and why they are not having their Daughter call directly, the usual answer was that they just wanted to know. Well if they already know from their friend's daughter's lawyer from her Divorce 10 years ago, why call me at all? Then I was called rude and hung up on.

Anyways, argue all you want. If you want information, simply pick up a good Contracts Text and read it.

Drewski

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by urban rednek

It was a bad decision that needs to be overturned by a higher court.
It is bad enough that they allow ambiguous vocalizations to indicate acceptance of legally binding contracts; this decision opens the door to any image being used. Once this door is opened, there is no limit to the amount of stupid interpretations that will be inflicted by those in the for-profit legal industry.
It will not end well.

The gold standard should be clearly stated acceptance of terms, or no deal.

The problem lies with the two parties loose process on agreements not the judgement. At the end of the day the judge had to decide based on whatever info was available including the emoji response. Decision was not just based on an emoji. The overall history of casualness in dealing was the main driver to what constituted an agreement in this case. Had every other deal between these parties been done by the book with proper contracts and signatures then I'm sure the interpretation of the emoji in this case would have been much different.

Handshake deal wouldn't be any different...In the case of a dispute the courts would look for any and all info that'd paint a picture of intentions on both sides. Guaranteed any digitally documented correspondence tracible to a specific party would be weighed quite heavily. Verbal hearsay not so much.

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by Looper

I guarantee you if the price had dropped the seller would've been screaming "thumbs up" is a binding agreement.

It was the right call.

Looper

Yup

[Rvsask]

Originally Posted by Looper

I guarantee you if the price had dropped the seller would've been screaming "thumbs up" is a binding agreement.

It was the right call.

Looper

100% truth.

[does it ALL outdoors]

Originally Posted by jstubbs

Sounds like a Justice who wants his name on a precedent setting case.

Sounds like a judge that needs to be removed from the bench.

Said it 100X before and I'll say it again, I REALLY wish we got to elect our judges (and Police chiefs too) and could vote them out when they go sideways like this.

Judges have very little accountability and that's kinda scary considering how much power they wield and how a big mistake on their part can impact someone's life forever. (think giving bail to a career criminal and said thug murders again while out on bail)

We really NEED to be able to elect our judges. (and Police chiefs)

[Lornce]

If you do not know what an emoji is why use it in the first place? Running your mouse over any emoji will tell you what it means. It's like shorthand and is meaningful.