A sask. farmer responded to a contract question with a thumbs up – now he has to pay $82,000

A judge in Saskatchewan says an emoji could amount to a contractual agreement and ordered a farmer to pay more than $82,000 for failing to deliver product to a grain buyer after responding to a text message with a thumbs up.

The ruling of the Court of King’s Bench said a grain buyer at South West Terminal texted farmers in March 2021 saying the company wanted to buy 86 tons of flax at $17 a bushel to deliver in the fall.

The buyer, Kent Mickleborough, later spoke to Swift Current farmer Chris Achter on the phone and texted a picture of a contract to deliver the flax in November, adding “please confirm the flax contract.”

Behind, a thumbs-up emoji texted back. But when November came, the flax was not delivered and prices for the harvest had risen.

Mickleborough said the emoji amounted to an agreement because he had texted numerous contracts to Achter, who previously confirmed via text and always fulfilled the order.

But the farmer argued that the emoji only indicated that he had received the contract in the text message.

“I deny that he accepted the thumbs-up emoji as a digital signature of the incomplete contract,” Achter said in a court affidavit.

“I didn’t have time to look at the Vlas contract and just wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.”

Judge Timothy Keene said in his June decision that the thumbs-up emoji met signature requirements and that the farmer was therefore in breach of his contract.

The judge pointed to a Dictionary.com definition of the thumbs-up emoji, which said it is used to express agreement, approval or encouragement in digital communication.

This court cannot (and should not) attempt to stem the tide of technology and common use…– Justice Timothy Keene

“This court readily recognizes that a (thumbs-up) emoji is a non-traditional means of ‘signing’ a document, but nevertheless, under these circumstances, it was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a ‘signature’. bring,” Keene wrote in his decision.

Achter’s lawyers argued that allowing an emoji as a signature or acceptance of contracts would open the floodgates for cases interpreting the meaning of the images.

Keene’s decision noted that the case is new, but the judge said emojis are now in common use.

“This court cannot (and should not) attempt to stem the tide of technology and widespread use – this appears to be the new reality in Canadian society and courts will need to be ready to face the new challenges that may arise from the use of emojis. and the like,” Keene said.