ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

SWIFT CURRENT, Sask. - Saskatchewan's highest court has given a thumbs-down to an appeal in a legal case involving the use of an emoji.

The Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan upheld this week a verdict that found a thumbs-up emoji met signature requirements and was a legally binding agreement between farmer Chris Achter and Kent Mickleborough, a grain buyer with South West Terminal. 

The decision says Court of King's Bench Justice Timothy Keene didn't make a mistake when he found the emoji sent over a text message showed agreement with the grain contract.

"The judge determined that a reasonable outside observer, who took account the relevant circumstances, would conclude that use by Mr. Achter of the thumbs up emoji was communication of his agreement to be bound by the terms of the contract proposed by Mr. Mickleborough," it says.

In March 2021, Mickleborough sent a text of the contract to Achter for a delivery of flax, and the farmer responded with a thumbs-up emoji but no accompanying text.

Achter didn't deliver the product, and the company took him to court for breaching the contract. The farmer was ordered to pay more than $82,000 plus interest and court costs.

Achter had argued the emoji only indicated he had received the contract, and he didn't have time to read it over. 

He said his flax crop also failed and he wouldn't have entered into the contract without an "act of God" clause.

Mickleborough argued the emoji amounted to an agreement, because he had previously texted numerous contracts to Achter, who would then confirm them via text and fulfil the order. 

The Appeal Court says the judge reached his conclusion after examining past communications between both parties, finding it was common for them to enter contracts through text messages. 

The judge also pointed to a definition of the thumbs-up emoji, which says it's used to express assent, approval or encouragement in digital communications.

"Mr. Achter may also not have known that, at law, his text message reply amounted to him having 'signed' the contract, but that does not invalidate the legal consequences attached to his actions," says the decision.

"What is material is that Mr. Achter intentionally communicated his agreement to Mr. Mickleborough and did so in a way that knowingly verified the communication as his own."

This report by ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø was first published Dec. 20, 2024.

— By Jeremy Simes in Regina