Canadian judge rules the thumbs up emoji counts as a contract agreement

According to a recent decision by a Canadian judge, the commonly used "thumbs-up" emoji can now be considered a legally binding agreement, comparable to a physical signature. The judge, based in Saskatchewan, made this ruling recognizing the need for courts to adapt to the changing ways in which people communicate. This news was first reported by The Guardian.

The situation revolved around a person who buys grains sending a message to multiple recipients in order to attract potential customers. One of the farmers agreed to sell a significant amount of flax, approximately equivalent to 86 tons, for a price of roughly $13 per bushel. The buyer proceeded to send a contract agreement through text message to the farmer and requested confirmation of receipt. The farmer responded with a thumbs-up emoji to acknowledge the document. However, the buyer reneged on the deal when the prices of flax rose.

The purchaser took legal action against the agriculturist, claiming that the signal of approval symbolized more than mere acknowledgement of the agreement. It signified an acceptance of the contract terms, and a judge concurred, compelling the farmer to pay a substantial sum of approximately $62,000, possibly leading to a series of nauseous emoticons.

According to a sworn statement from Chris Achter, the farmer, he stated that he was unable to go through the contract due to time constraints. He claimed that his use of the thumbs-up emoji was only an acknowledgment of receiving the document. Based on the definition of the emoji provided by Dictionary.com, which states that it is commonly used to show agreement, approval, or support in online communication, particularly in Western societies, Justice Timothy Keene decided in favor of the buyer of the grain.

"This court acknowledges without hesitation that an approval icon is an unconventional method to 'execute' a document. However, given the prevailing circumstances, it was still deemed a legitimate approach to express the dual intentions behind a 'signature'," Justice Keene stated.

The defense put forth the viewpoint that bestowing such authority upon an emoji would pave the way for broader interpretations of other emojis. Although the justice rejected this argument, individuals who frequently utilize the LOL emoji without experiencing genuine laughter might currently feel apprehensive.