A farmer in Canada has been instructed to pay over CAD $82,000 (USD $61,784) as compensation due to a misunderstanding involving an emoji. A judge in Saskatchewan resolved the issue by stating that the use of a thumbs-up emoji had signified the acceptance of contractual terms.
In a recent ruling by the Court of King's Bench in Saskatchewan province, Canada, it was determined that a grain buyer associated with South West Terminal had sent a text message to local farmers in March 2021. The message conveyed the company's intention to purchase 86 metric tons of flax during the upcoming fall season, offering a price of $17 per bushel.
Kent Mickleborough, the grain buyer, afterward had a phone conversation with Chris Achter, the owner of the Swift Current farm in Saskatchewan, and texted a picture of a contract for flax delivery in November 2021, adding, "please confirm the flax contract."
Achter, in response, sent a thumbs-up emoji to the flax-purchase contract photo. However, November 2021 passed without the flax delivery, and prices increased.
A dispute between Mickleborough and Achter triggered "a far-flung search for the equivalent of the Rosetta Stone in cases from Israel, New York State, and some tribunals in Canada" to ascertain the implications of the thumbs-up emoji, according to the verdict in June.
Mickleborough argued that the thumbs-up emoji signified agreement to the contractual terms, while Achter stated that the emoji was used to imply he acknowledged receipt of the text but not acceptance of contractual terms.
"I deny that he accepted the thumbs-up emoji as a digital signature of the incomplete contract. I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message," Achter said in a court affidavit.
In his June court ruling, Justice Timothy Keene noted that thumbs-up emoji met signature requirements and blamed Achter for breach of contract. The judge further referred to Dictionary.com's definition of the thumbs-up emoji, which explained that it "is used to express assent, approval, or encouragement in digital communications, especially in Western cultures."
Judge Keene acknowledged that the case involved a unique situation, but also recognized that emojis have become widely prevalent in modern communication.
"This court cannot (nor should it) attempt to stem the tide of technology and common usage — this appears to be the new reality in Canadian society, and courts will have to be ready to meet the new challenges that may arise from the use of emojis and the like," Keene remarked.