The Legal Power of Emojis: How a ‘Thumbs-Up’ Emoji Validated a Contract and Led to a $61,000 Fine
The emoji is a “non-traditional means to ‘sign’ a document, but under these circumstances, this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a signature,” Justice Timothy Keene said.
The Backstory
On March 26, 2021, an agent for the Buyer texted the representative for the grain seller a picture of the flax contract along with the text message: “Please confirm flax contract.” This followed a phone conversation in which the parties discussed and agreed to a flax contract.
ALSO READ: Empowering Indian Developers: Meta’s $250K Grant Unleashes the Potential of Extended Reality Apps
The buyer interpreted the seller’s representative’s thumbs-up text response as an acceptance of the contract from the seller. The flax, however, was not delivered by the Seller.
For using the thumbs-up emoji, a farmer was fined an approximate amount of $61,000. In light of the “new reality” of how people connect, the judge stated that the court must adapt.
In an unusual case, a Canadian judge ruled that the “thumbs-up” emoji is comparable to a person’s signature and that the court must adapt to the “new reality” of how people connect, according to a report in The Guardian. The judge also ordered a farmer to pay $61,442 in damages for breach of contract.
In a recent instance, the Court of King’s Bench in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan ruled that a grain buyer had informed his clients through the broadcast message that his business intended to purchase 86 tonnes of flax for $12.73 (Rs 1051) a bushel in March 2021. The buyer, Kent Mickleborough, contacted the farmer, Chris Achter, and asked him to “please confirm the flax contract,” sending a picture of the agreement for the delivery of grain in November.
ALSO READ: How Digital Twin Technology is Set to Transform Our Lives by 2035
When responding to the message, Mr. Achter used the thumbs-up emoji. But by the time he didn’t deliver the flax in November, crop prices had skyrocketed. Later, Mr. Mickleborough and the farmer disputed the farmer’s interpretation of the emoji.
The buyer cited precedent agreements and said that Mr. Achter’s usage of the thumbs-up emoji indicated that he understood and agreed to the terms of the deal. The farmer, on the other hand, asserted that the emoji simply signified that he had received the contract in the message.
The judge made an interesting reference to the thumbs-up emoji’s use in digital communications, according to the description provided by Dictionary.com. Achter’s attorneys contended that permitting an emoji to serve as a signature or acceptance for contracts would invite a plethora of legal disputes about the interpretation of the images.
Conclusion
The emoji is a “non-traditional” means to ‘sign’ a document, but under these circumstances, this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a signature,” Justice Timothy Keene said. He also dismissed concerns from the defense that allowing the thumbs-up emoji to suggest acceptance “would open up the floodgates” to new readings of other emojis, such the “fist bump” and “handshake.”
ALSO READ: Integrating ChatGPT in Enterprises: A Comprehensive Guide
Courts will need to be prepared to handle any new issues brought on by the use of emojis and similar symbols because it appears that this is the new reality in Canadian culture.
This ruling highlights the significance of understanding that, depending on the situation, electronic approval of contracts can be indicated, even using seemingly unimportant tools like an emoji. It serves as a reminder that the objective intentions of parties have no bearing on whether a contract is legal under the law. A contract’s legality is decided by evaluating the parties’ intentions from the viewpoint of a fair and impartial observer who is knowledgeable of all relevant information.
The parties may still be held to their promises in the contract despite the unusual method of acceptance if a fair-minded third party would interpret sending an emoji as acceptance of the contract. In the end, preventing disagreements depends on written communication being clear.
