A judge in Canada has made a ruling that recognizes the “thumbs-up” emoji as a valid form of signature. The judge believes that courts should adapt to the modern way of communication. As a result, a farmer was ordered to pay $61,442 for breaking a contract.
The Court of King’s Bench in Saskatchewan recently heard a case involving a grain buyer from South West Terminal. The buyer sent a mass text message to clients in March 2021, announcing that the company was interested in purchasing 86 tonnes of flax at a price of $12.73 per bushel.
Kent Mickleborough, the buyer, communicated with farmer Chris Achter via phone and shared a picture of a contract to deliver the flax in November. In the message, Kent requested Chris to confirm the flax contract.
Chris Achter, the seller, responded with a thumbs-up emoji. However, Achter failed to deliver the flax in November, and by then, the crop prices had gone up.
The seller and buyer have been disagreeing about the interpretation of an emoji. The buyer uses previous text messages to support their claim that the emoji indicates the seller’s agreement to the contract terms.
Achter clarified that the emoji in the text message only meant that he had received the contract.
Justice Keene used a Dictionary.com definition of the emoji to support his argument. According to the definition, emojis are used to express agreement, approval, or encouragement in digital communication. While Justice Keene acknowledged that this definition may not be authoritative, it aligns with his understanding of emojis.
He argued that while a signature is a traditional way to confirm someone’s identity, modern methods like emojis can also confirm a contract. Justice Keene noted that a thumbs-up emoji might be an unconventional way to “sign” a document. However, it still conveys the two purposes of a signature – to identify the signatory and to show acceptance of the contract. In this case, the signatory’s cell phone number was used to identify them.
The Court of King’s Bench in Saskatchewan recently heard a case involving a grain buyer from South West Terminal. The buyer sent a mass text message to clients in March 2021, announcing that the company was interested in purchasing 86 tonnes of flax at a price of $12.73 per bushel.
Kent Mickleborough, the buyer, communicated with farmer Chris Achter via phone and shared a picture of a contract to deliver the flax in November. In the message, Kent requested Chris to confirm the flax contract.
Chris Achter, the seller, responded with a thumbs-up emoji. However, Achter failed to deliver the flax in November, and by then, the crop prices had gone up.
The seller and buyer have been disagreeing about the interpretation of an emoji. The buyer uses previous text messages to support their claim that the emoji indicates the seller’s agreement to the contract terms.
Achter clarified that the emoji in the text message only meant that he had received the contract.
Justice Keene used a Dictionary.com definition of the emoji to support his argument. According to the definition, emojis are used to express agreement, approval, or encouragement in digital communication. While Justice Keene acknowledged that this definition may not be authoritative, it aligns with his understanding of emojis.
He argued that while a signature is a traditional way to confirm someone’s identity, modern methods like emojis can also confirm a contract. Justice Keene noted that a thumbs-up emoji might be an unconventional way to “sign” a document. However, it still conveys the two purposes of a signature – to identify the signatory and to show acceptance of the contract. In this case, the signatory’s cell phone number was used to identify them.
For all the latest Technology News Click Here
For the latest news and updates, follow us on Google News.
Denial of responsibility! NewsUpdate is an automatic aggregator around the global media. All the content are available free on Internet. We have just arranged it in one platform for educational purpose only. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials on our website, please contact us by email – [email protected]. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.
