In an unexpected turn of events, a Canadian farmer was hit with a AUD $92,500 fine after a judge ruled that a "thumbs-up" 👍 emoji he texted was a legally binding agreement. The case marked a significant moment in Canadian law, where an emoji was recognized as the equivalent of a formal signature.
The court case revolved around a farmer, Chris Achter, who responded to a contract for selling 86 tonnes of flax to grain buyer Kent Mickleborough with a 'thumbs-up' emoji. Mickleborough, who represented South West Terminal, sent the contract to Achter via text, asking for confirmation. When the agreed-upon flax failed to materialize in November, the company took Achter to court.
According toĀ legal documents seen by The Mirage, Achter defended himself by stating that the 'thumbs-up' emoji 👍 only confirmed his receipt of the contract and not acceptance. He contended that he was awaiting the complete contract to be sent via fax or email for review and signature.
"I confirm that the thumbs-up emoji simply confirmed that I received the Flax contract. It was not a confirmation that I agreed with the terms of the Flax Contract. The full terms and conditions of the Flax Contract were not sent to me, and I understood that the complete contract would follow by fax or email for me to review and sign. Mr. Mikleborough [sic] regularly texted me, and many of the messages were informal. Attached as Exhibit āAā is one example of many jokes that Mr. Mikleborough [sic] would send me. I deny that he accepted the thumbs-up emoji as a digital signature of the incomplete contract. I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message," he said in an affidavit.
After much deliberation and referencing cases from around the world, Justice Timothy Keene ruled in favor of South West Terminal. He acknowledged that while an emoji 👍 is an unconventional means to sign a document, it was a valid method under these circumstances to convey a signature's two main purposes.
"In my opinion, when considering all of the circumstances that meant approval of the flax contract and not simply that he had received the contract and was going to think about it. In my view a reasonable bystander knowing all of the background would come to the objective understanding that the parties had reached consensusĀ ad itemĀ ā a meeting of the minds ā just like they had done on numerous other occasions.
Achter's legal team expressed worries that this ruling could lead to the interpretation of other emojis in future legal agreements, which Justice Keene dismissed. He noted that courts should be prepared to meet the challenges arising from the prevalent use of emojis in modern communication.
The case has set a noteworthy precedent in Canadian law and could potentially impact how digital communication is viewed in the context of legal agreements.
