Canadian court gives thumbs up to emojis
A judge in Canada has ruled that the “thumbs-up” emoji is as legally binding as a traditional signature in a judgment that ordered a farmer to pay damages for breach of contract.
A court in Saskatchewan heard that a grain buyer had broadcast a text message to clients in 2021, expressing his interest in purchasing 86 tonnes of flax at $17 (£10) per bushel. The buyer, Kent Mickleborough, had a phone conversation with the farmer, Chris Achter, and sent him a photo of a contract for the flax delivery scheduled in November, asking Achter to “confirm the flax contract”.
Mr Achter responded with a thumbs-up emoji, but failed to deliver the flax in November. Consequently, the price of the crop went up.
In court, the buyer, Mr Mickleborough, drew attention to prior contracts confirmed via text message, suggesting that the emoji signified Mr Achter’s agreement to the contract terms. However, Mr Achter argued that the emoji merely denoted his acknowledgement of the contract’s receipt via text message.
In his affidavit, Mr Achter stated: “I deny that he accepted the thumbs-up emoji as a digital signature of the incomplete contract.”
He added: “I did not have time to review the flax contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.”
During the proceedings, Mr Achter’s legal representative objected to his client being cross-examined about the thumbs-up emoji’s meaning, contending that his client “is not an expert in emojis”.
Justice Timothy Keene, who ordered Mr Achter to pay $82,000 in damages, said in his ruling: “This court readily acknowledges that an 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.”
Justice Keene also dismissed defence worries that recognising the thumbs-up emoji as a symbol of agreement “would open up the floodgates” to interpretations of other emojis.
In his assertion that the thumbs-up emoji could be used to formalise contracts, the judge stated that the court “cannot, nor should it, attempt to stem the tide of technology”. He added: “This appears to be the new reality and courts will have to be ready to meet the challenges that may arise from the use of emojis and the like.”