A Canadian court has ruled that the “thumbs-up” emoji is just as valid as a signature, arguing that courts need to adapt to the “new reality” of how people communicate. Judge TJ Keene of the King’s Bench for Saskatchewan ordered a farmer to pay $61,442 for an unfulfilled contract.
“I agree that this case is novel (at least in Saskatchewan) but nevertheless this Court cannot (nor should it) attempt to stem the tide of technology and common usage – this appears to be the new reality in Canadian society and courts will have to be ready to meet the new challenges that may arise from the use of emojis and the like,” the judge said.
The case background: In March 2021, a grain buyer named Kent Mickleborough from South West Terminal reached out to clients via a mass text message. The purpose of the message was to inform potential sellers that the company was interested in purchasing 86 tonnes of flax at a rate of $12.73 per bushel. During their communication, Mickleborough engaged in a phone conversation with farmer Chris Achter and followed it up by sending a picture of a contract, urging Achter to confirm his agreement to deliver the flax in November. In response, Achter, a resident of Swift Current, conveyed his approval using a thumbs-up emoji. However, when November arrived, Achter failed to fulfill the contract, coinciding with a rise in flax prices. Consequently, a disagreement arose between Mickleborough and Achter regarding the interpretation of the emoji. Mickleborough asserted that previous contracts confirmed via text message indicated that the emoji signified Achter’s acceptance of the contract’s terms. On the other hand, Achter maintained that the emoji merely indicated receipt of the contract in the text message.
“I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Chris (defendant’s representative) okayed or approved the contract just like he had done before except this time he used a 👍 emoji … In my view a reasonable bystander knowing all of the background would come to the objective understanding that the parties had reached consensus ad item – a meeting of the minds – just like they had done on numerous other occasions,” the court held.
Judge TJ Keene also recorded examples of previous instances where the defendant responded in similar curt terms such as, “looks good”, “ok” or “yup” and followed through on the contract.
“The parties clearly understood these curt words were meant to be confirmation of the contract and not a mere acknowledgement of the receipt of the contract by Chris. There can be no other logical or creditable explanation because the proof is in the pudding”, the judgment added.
