246

Farmer ordered to pay after judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance (www.theglobeandmail.com)

submitted 1 year ago by BrikoX@vlemmy.net to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 85 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

People, the defendant had a history of using 👍to accept a contract with the aggrieved. Had done it NP a dozen times before. He was trying to use a technicality to weasel out of breaching a contract he obviously agreed to when he couldn’t fulfill it.

[-] OldManCoffee@midwest.social 15 points 1 year ago

Not only that but by the end of the contract price was up, so farmer would not make as much as on the free market.

[-] IronDonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Did the article actually say he accepted with thumbs up before? Thought it just said he'd accepted via text.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] OnionFutures@vlemmy.net 79 points 1 year ago

I don't think this is particularly surprising. Handshakes can form legal contracts, and contracts can be formed orally. There's no reason why an image couldn't indicate acceptance of a contract, generally speaking (certain specific types of contract may require additional formalities).

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago

Handshakes can form legal contracts, and contracts can be formed orally.

While true, these are terrible forms of contract agreement for anything of value, and specifically when there are no witnesses. One person could easily claim that "I heard them say something else" or "We didn't shake on anything!".

As for emojis, you can interpret them in 101 ways, and that's assuming both parties are using the same emoji icon set! Some look different depending on the platform, and some have completely different meanings without even knowing it! When I get an emoji on my business email, it doesn't even show up as an emoji!

A "thumbs up", in my book, is not an agreement to a contract. I want a clear written acknowledgement and/or a signature. Anything less could be hard to prove or completely denied as even happening.

[-] OnionFutures@vlemmy.net 16 points 1 year ago

Completely agree, and anyone with any foresight would insist on something more robust. But very often the courts have to deal with situations where the parties did not have that foresight and instead proceeded to do business with one another on the basis of informal or very flimsily documented arrangements. And it falls to the court to look at what little evidence there is and determine (to the extent they can) whether there was an agreement and, if so, what the agreement entailed.

You would actually be surprised just how much business is conducted like this.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

You would actually be surprised just how much business is conducted like this.

I'm sure I'd be surprised!

To be honest, I feel that the defendant's argument that “I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.”, is valid, since he interpreted the thumbs up as a sign of acknowledgement, not an acceptance to the contract.

The courts, however, used a third party's interpretation of what the emoji could mean, which I don't think was right.

"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.

Imagine texting your spouse various food emojis, including an eggplant, hot dog, banana, and peach, as you were at the grocery store. Your spouse comes back with a thumb's up emoji. Would the courts say that the spouse was agreeing to consensual sex or a shopping list? There are so many ways I can see this ruling creating problems where none currently exist.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

Would the courts say that the spouse was agreeing to consensual sex or a shopping list?

Context matters and I'd call this a straw man argument.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

"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.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

A single character emoji could easily be a typo as well.

[-] Zippy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Agree in that while verbally is fully a contract it is hard to verify unless recorded and possibly witnessed. Point being it is as legal as a written which many people do not understand.

As for the thumb up emoji, this particular person has used it in past and had a history of using it to approve services. In that context I think it is fully legitimate to hold him to it. Barring that, yes I agree on most cases it will not suffice as a legal document. It is much the same way a China often uses English for legal contracts as their written language has too many interpretations.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] Darkard@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

👍

[-] ug01x@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

That'll be $82,000 to the federation.

[-] bappity@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

👍

[-] julianh@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

👍

[-] Toto@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

👍

[-] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

According to the courts you agree with this post and have not simply read the post.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 14 points 1 year ago

“I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.”

This is what the 👀 emoji is for, is it not? "I am acknowledging seeing this."

[-] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

That's not really how 👀 is used these days among the young folk, but I wouldn't expect a random Canadian farmer to know that either.

I don't think that a thumbs up emoji should be a valid signature. The farmer was responding to "please confirm flax contract" and the thumbs up emoji really could mean "I've seen your text and will look at the contract to confirm/deny soon." Although the article did also mention that the same type of acceptance had happened previously with this farmer where the contracts were treated as valid and fulfilled so the farmer is probably disingenuous with their argument.

[-] PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I would use 👀 that way. What else would it be?

[-] Vulnicura@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's alluding to being interested.

[-] valek879@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Surprise and or shock? Wariness? They look like cartoon eyes on like Wile-E-Coyote or Tom when they realize they're still holding the dynamite. 🧨 👀 😨

[-] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It's more like "look at this shit"/"you seeing this?"/“whoa” for general stuff. Or sometimes with a slightly inappropriate joke or flirting the eyes acknowledge that and lessen it - like saying jk did back in the day.

In this context if I sent a contract to someone younger and they responded 👀 I might have to doublecheck if something was glaringly wrong with it.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] sergih123@eslemmy.es 12 points 1 year ago

Many times I've gotten the thumbs up as a way to indicate that someone received a message, however it'll only be read later, it can mean that they're doing smt at the moment.

[-] Toto@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Judge should have mandated the legally less ambiguous 🍆💦 combo to agree to a contract

[-] m3adow@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Not according to dictionary.com which the judge referred to for the thumbs up.

They should update the meaning, I also know it as a "read receipt".

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

If I was going to read a text and respond to it later, I would just... respond to it later.

Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong.

[-] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

A lot of people hate being "left on read" where they see a programmed read receipt but aren't actually acknowledged. Or for messages without programmed read receipts it does that as well. The thumbs up is also supposed to end conversations quickly.