A Canadian judge has ruled that the popular “thumbs-up” emoji not only can be used as a contract agreement, but is just as valid as an actual signature. The Saskatchewan-based judge made the ruling on the grounds that the courts must adapt to the “new reality” of how people communicate, as originally reported by The Guardian.
TLDR: Farmer agrees to sell some flax in the future at a fixed price, by responding “👍” to “please confirm flax contract”. Later, as the market price of flax went up, the farmer demands more money. They buyer then goes to court to force the farmer to sell the flax at the agreed price, judge rules that the “👍” does count as agreement.
This is a contract that was made several times previously, with similar informal agreements like “ok”, but this time the farmer tried to get out.
That really depends on context. I use it at work all the time to say “got it” or “sounds good.” Basically, it’s an approval/acknowledgement of receipt, depending on context.
On social media though, it’ll be a sarcastic response.
So in this context, I would absolutely intend it as an approval/acknowledgment since it’s a business contract.
In the article, it details that the judge ruled this way because the guy had a history of accepting previous contracts with the other guy with short one word answers, so in that context, its valid.
It isn't the blanket ruling the headline makes you think it is.
Absolutely. I’m just saying that even without the context of the guy having done this multiple times, it still makes sense to see this as an approval.
I personally would never handle contracts this way, but if I sent someone a contract and they responded with that emoji, I would interpret it as an approval. If someone sent me a contract and I responded with that emoji, I would intend it as an approval. So even without the context of the guy’s previous contract approvals, I agree with the judge’s ruling.
A lot of people don’t understand that there is nothing magical about a written contract with a signature. If you agree to something you have a contract. It doesn’t matter if it is written, spoken, gestured or anything else. Written contracts with signatures are often preferred because it is very clear that there was an agreement and what was agreed to. But just about any method of agreeing is just as binding.
Like you said, written contracts lack vagueness. The interaction leading to the Thumbs Up was pretty damn vague. Validates my refusal to ever use emojis.
Have you read the article? theguardian.com/…/canada-judge-thumbs-up-emoji-si…. I think that the thumbs up was actually pretty clear in this case. He had a history of accepting contracts which had already been discussed verbally with a short text like “Ok” or “Looks good”. It seems very likely that “👍” meant the same thing.
Emoji doesn’t have anything to do with it. The fact is that he was responding to a legal agreement informally. There is really no difference between “Looks good” and “👍”. This is only a story because he tried to weasel out when the price shot up.
If the question asked was “do you agree to the contract?” and the farmer answered “👍”, then yeah I can see it. But if the question asked was “have you received the contract?”, then this ruling is bullshit. Unfortunately the article doesn’t have enough information either way.
Apparently the message was an image of the contract and “please confirm flax contract”. Seems like the most likely interpretation of the 👍 is agreeing to the contract, not confirming receipt.
Exactly. But I think the farmer actually did want to agree and lock in the price of the flax.
Only reason they were looking for a way out was because flax had skyrocketed and they wanted to sell to someone else.
Three times prior they replied with “Looks good,” “Ok” and “Yup.”, and then delivered the flax per the contract. It was only when the price went up they wanted to say they were not agreeing to it.
In either case the judge was pretty specific that this was not a precedent for the thumbs up emoji, but just that in this particular case it sure looked like consent based on past actions.
Wow this article on this subject has the least info. And the judge did not rule that it is always the case that a thumbs up would be binding, just that the context in this case it was.
The other party sent over the contract with he text: “Please confirm flax contract.” They then responded with thumbs up.
3 times prior to this, this exact same exchange happened. In each of these times the farmer replied with “Looks good,” “Ok” and “Yup.”. After which in all 3 instances the farmer then delivered the flax.
In this particular case the farmer replied with thumbs up. Then after 3 months the price of flax skyrocketed. And of course the farmer now wants a better price.
In this case the three prior contracts being agreed to with only a “Looks good,” “Ok” and “Yup.” and then being delivered seem to point that a thumbs up is pretty much along those lines.
Oh here is a version of the article that has a little more detail:
Add comment