Watch Your Emojis

Dks01 · 2025-07-25T13:50:22+00:00

The Supreme Court will not hear the Saskatchewan legal case which called into question the use of the thumbs up emoji to signal agreement with a contract. As usual, no reasons were given for not hearing the case. The Supreme Court of Canada has given a thumbs-down to hearing a legal case involving an emoji. The country’s highest court dismissed an application by farmer Chris Achter to appeal a decision by the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan. The Appeal Court upheld a verdict that found a thumbs-up emoji met signature requirements and was a legally binding agreement between Achter and Kent Mickleborough, a grain buyer with South West Terminal. In 2021, Mickleborough sent a text of a contract to Achter for a delivery of flax, and the farmer responded with a thumbs-up emoji. Achter didn’t deliver the product, and the company took him to court for breaching the contract. The Supreme Court says costs are to be given to the grain company. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/supreme-court-wont-hear-thumbs-up-emoji-case-involving-saskatchewan-farmer/

Hydraglass

urbanriot was surprised that this wasn’t referenced in the ruling which still has me wondering if we now have to be fearful that an accidental ‘like’ of a text message could result in a legally binding agreement

The judge did reference that their previous deals were often affirmed with simple one word affirmations like “ok” or “yep” - and said that as such a thumbs up fit that methodology. They didn’t reference other situations as they weren’t really relevant – but I think in another situation where you had never done business with someone, had no history, and were presented a first offer, and the other party took a simple thumbs up emoji as a signature to the deal, a court would be hard pressed to use this case as a precedent, for the reason the judge did specifically call out their previous dealings and agreement responses as part of the ruling.

Rock_cake

px_eliezer_ There was a prominent US judge named Learned Hand, he would have been perfect for this case.

Aloha, Mr. Hand!
/Jeff Spicoli

urbanriot

Hydraglass The judge did reference that their previous deals were often affirmed with simple one word affirmations like “ok” or “yep” - and said that as such a thumbs up fit that methodology

Where did you read that referenced by a judge in the ruling? I just skimmed the link above and I’m not seeing that factored into the resultant ruling.

Hydraglass

urbanriot
[62] In my opinion the signature requirement was met by the emoji originating from [Achter] and his unique cell phone … which was used to receive the flax contract… There is no issue with the authenticity of the text message which is the underlying purpose of the written and signed requirement of s. 6 of [the SGA]. Again, based on the facts in this case – the texting of a contract and then the seeking and receipt of approval was consistent with the previous process between SWT and [Achter] to enter into grain contracts.

[63] This court readily acknowledges that a emoji is a non-traditional means to “sign” a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a “signature” – to identify the signator ([Achter] using his unique cell phone number) and as I have found above – to convey … acceptance of the flax contract.

—
Final line of item 62

Dks01

It is also a reminder that a farmer’s handshake should be as good as their word, even if the handshake is an electronic one in the 21st century.

« Previous Page