People, the defendant had a history of using 👍to accept a contract with the aggrieved. Had done it NP a dozen times before. He was trying to use a technicality to weasel out of breaching a contract he obviously agreed to when he couldn’t fulfill it.

[–] OldManCoffee@midwest.social 16 points 1 year ago

Not only that but by the end of the contract price was up, so farmer would not make as much as on the free market.

[–] IronDonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Did the article actually say he accepted with thumbs up before? Thought it just said he'd accepted via text.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The point is that now there's a precedent and going forward, that emoji counts as a signature

[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Not quite, and for 2 reasons:

I'm not sure if it is the same in Canada, but in the US it is only a 'precedent' if ruled by an appeals court, and
The Judge found the Defendant had a history of tersely accepting agreed upon (by later full completion of) contracts. If, for example you had texted me a similar contract and historically when you did I typically answered "yes, I agree to these contract details. Expect Flax in the Fall", but one time I texted 👍and then a day later said "nah, I don't agree to this contract" you'd have a case but I'd almost certainly win under the same Judge because now the argument 'the 👍 was just confirming receipt but not approval of the contract' holds water.