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.

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/945590

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/1255003

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.

  • @cynarEnglish
    17•11 months ago

    To add some context. The farmer involved had previously agreed multiple other contracts with a thumbs up. In context it was obvious the thumbs up was intended as “I agree”.

    Courts recognising how language and communication is changing is completely normal. It’s the same concept at the tick box+button press of online contracts. So long as both parties are aware of the terms, and accept them, that’s all that counts. A signature is just the most formalised acceptance method.

    • @[email protected]English
      4•11 months ago

      Thanks for the context. I’m this case it does not mean that anyone replying with a thumbs up is agreeing to a contract. It just apply in this specific case where the thumbs up had been used by the farmer multiple times as a way to agree to a contract.

  • @HappycamperNZEnglish
    10•11 months ago

    I wouldn’t say this is boring dystopia as much as people may think. With the exception of guarantee or land disposal contracts don’t gave yo be in writing, on must have a outward sign of acceptance (and offer/acceptance and support by co sideration). A thumb emovi can be a sign of acceptance.

    • Spiracle
      4•11 months ago

      The questionable part is the potential ambiguity. Some people use that emoji just to confirm they received the message, and the defendant argued they meant it that way.

      As @cynar said, the judge ruled based on all the previous times this farmer has apparently confirmed contracts that way. So, in this case, it’s not dystopic.