Farmer owes $82,000 in contract dispute over use of a ‘thumbs-up’ emoji, judge says
Farmer owes $82,000 in contract dispute over use of a ‘thumbs-up’ emoji, judge says
A Canadian farmer owes $82,000 for breach of contract after using a “thumbs-up” emoji in a text.
You're viewing a single thread.
Just heard about this last night on the WAN show. That's just nuts.
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.
Until fairly recently, hand signals was the main way of buying and selling stocks!
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.
Signatures don't need to be notarized to be legally binding.
Yeah they do.
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.