Canadian judge rules the thumbs up emoji counts as a contract agreement | Engadget
www.engadget.com
A Canadian judge has ruled that the popular “thumbs-up” emoji not only can be used as a contract agreement, but is just as valid as an actual signature.

A Canadian judge has ruled that the popular “thumbs-up” emoji not only can be used as a contract agreement, but is just as valid as an actual signature. The Saskatchewan-based judge made the ruling on the grounds that the courts must adapt to the “new reality” of how people communicate, as originally reported by The Guardian.

  • WhoRoger@lemmy.worldEnglish
    81·
    1 year ago

    So 🖕now counts as a verbal attack or something?

    For real, I can see how a thumbs up can be taken as a signature, if both parties understand that. Since this ended up in court, they obviously didn’t. Especially if the emoji was only as a response to a request of confirmation of receipt.

    • Kerfuffle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      I can see how a thumbs up can be taken as a signature, if both parties understand that. Since this ended up in court, they obviously didn’t.

      Uhh, there are definitely other reasons it can end up in court even if everyone understood everything perfectly. For example, if at any point one of the parties decided it would have been in their best interests if they hadn’t agreed to the contract…

        • Kerfuffle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          But that’s a different problem from “was the contract even signed?”

          I was responding to the “it wouldn’t have ended up in court unless a misunderstanding occurred” part. My point is the fact that it ended up it court isn’t necessarily because there was any misunderstanding at the time. People don’t always act in good faith.

    • JohnEdwa@kbin.social
      5·
      1 year ago

      Both parties did understand it, as the previous contracts were agreed by him texting back “Looks good”, “Yup” and “Ok”. What the court actually ruled is that “👍” has the same meaning as those - which most people would agree to, no? It ended up in court because the farmer wanted out of it due to the change in flax seed prices and saw a possibility in the argument that this time he didn’t actually mean he agreed to the pre-signed contract, just that he had received it.

    • Algeerto@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      It’s a good point, but in this case I think that because he had replied similarly to previous completed contracts it shows that was the expectation.