https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/07/business/farmer-contract-thumbs-up-emoji/index.html
A Canadian farmer owes $82,000 for breach of contract after using a “thumbs-up” emoji in a text.
he had done at least four other contracts with Achter via text. He said the only difference this time was Achter responded with a “thumbs-up” emoji instead of “ok”, “yup” or “looks good.”
I think this precedent set between the two parties is relevant, giving an otherwise casual text message a little more authority. Not that one word text responses are how you should enter a contract, but it’s what they had already been doing.
Lots of people are going to complain about it, but having this context makes it more clear. I’ll bet that there’s precedence that things like a nod, physical thumbs up, uh huh, etc. constitute acceptance of contracts too. This could easily be an intentional act by the farmer to imply acceptance in a way that he thought wouldn’t hold legal weight if he decided to renege on it later. I wonder if the previous one word acceptances ended up in the farmers favour and the emoji just happened to be the one that didn’t.
That said, it’s also a good reminder on the other side that if you’re entering in a high value contract it’s good to ensure clear communications. While the case did work out in the buyers favour, a simple response of “is that an acceptance of the contract” would have saved a lot of time.
Agreed totally, precedence makes all the difference here. If there's two people had an established history of agreeing to deals via text with one word answers, it's hard to deny.
If you read the article, this farmer had accepted contracts from the buyer through text multiple times. The only difference this time was the thumbs up vs. saying ok.
That and he could get $41 / bushel instead of the $17 that was in the contract.
Edit: let my flesh is this out a little more.
In my opinion, he was trying to back out of the contract and thought he could based on a technicality. That he didn't physically sign it. But he didn't physically sign the others and still accepted and delivered those.
So? Even if he did work before, he didn't sign a contract. He should be free to change any deals that don't have a notorized signature attached to them.
This is basic business. Hopefully he won't get convicted and future businessmen can learn from this.
Contract law is interesting here. There's something called implied consent that makes the previous events very relevant - "Implied acceptance occurs when the parties act in a way that indicates their agreement with the contract terms. It also occurs when a product or service is purchased; payment for the item in question is considered implied acceptance.". This can be verbal or nonverbal.
So since he acted in a way that indicated acceptance previously, the form of acceptance (single text, positive reaction) it's implied he was accepting. A hand shake also constitutes acceptance if it was face to face.
While the novelty of accepting a contract through emojis is pretty goofy, judges applying contract law to hold people to commercial promises like this is otherwise a pretty run-of-the-mill thing, even when the promise was over text.
I think the key was he had done it a few times before. Only difference being an "ok" message and a thumbs up emoji.
It's a little wild that they're going to bind contracts by text. Last thing I need is someone replying for me because I'm busy, and now I'm in a contract.
The crux of the case was the defendant had previously accepted contracts via text message with responses like "ok", "yup", and "looks good". All of those contracts were successfully completed.
IMO he was looking to back out of the contract because he could get $41 / bushel instead of the $17 that was in the contract.
"We've done business before without actual contracts, so we should always be able to." Sounds like bad businessmen to me.
The problem is that he had set the precedent. If you have the clear precedent that the text is only acknowledging that the contract is ready for you to look over then the judge would've likely ruled the other way.
If you're diligent that you always properly actually sign the contracts, that you're never giving final confirmation by way of a one word text. Then it's unlikely you'd get legally binding in this situation.
Besides, in this case the farmer was definitely in the wrong. He was trying to pull a sneaky because the cash price was over double the contract price at time of delivery. It wouldn't be any different if he had properly signed the contract except that he couldn't try the "but I never actually signed it" excuse.
He should've just ate the contract cancelation fee if he wanted to ride the crazy price. Plenty of other people did just that and there was minimal legal shenanigans involved.
I think people need to have notorized signatures for it to be a legally binding agreement. He should be free to change his mind on anything that doesn't have his notorized signature, regardless of the past.
This is the price of casual business dealing, and many people have had to eat it in order to learn.
Always get things in writing. A notorized signature for all important business dealings.
Then you thought wrong. The vast majority of the time notarized signatures are unnecessary. Adding that as a base requirement of all legal contracts is a terrible idea. Did you get a notarized signature last time you bought or sold your car (either with a dealership or privately). Because if not then you already failed to meet that standard.
I agree that letting things get so casual as to start "signing" by text is a bad thing. Handshake agreements are things you do with your neighbors, not with large businesses. But requiring a notary for every contract is going too far in the other direction.
As a counterpoint, it would be quite unfair for the law to allow people to breach their agreements purely based on the medium used to enter into an otherwise valid contract.
E.g., what if the non-breaching person had invested considerable time or money complying with their end of the bargain in reliance on the promise? What if, as I understand the case was here, the parties completed multiple agreements over text and came to rely on that medium as the convention?
In any event, the analysis leaves a lot of room for a judge to consider the factual background and reach a fair outcome.
You can breach any 'agreement' that doesn't have your notorized signature on it. Telling someone you're going to do something is not a legally binding agreement.
No they don't. You don't know what you are talking about. Plenty of non-notorized contacts, including verbal only agreements, have been enforced by the courts.
Just a few sources among a thousand or so:
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/small-business/do-contracts-need-to-be-notarized-or-witnessed/
Mate, in basically all common law jurisdictions an agreement can be a legally binding contract regardless of its form. While there are some narrow exceptions (largely dealing with specific instruments or real property), by and large that rule holds. Even an oral contract is legally enforceable.