Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadian judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance

theglobeandmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: Canadian judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance

#31

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

JohnFen wrote: post #16
wnolens wrote: post #14

I don't know, I actually agree with the farmer here > “I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.” That is often how I use it on facebook messenger since it's so conveniently placed. It's fine that a verbal agreement is binding, but you should have to utter the sentence "I agree with the terms" or when asked a question with a yes/no answer, reply…

I disagree. The thumbs-up was in response to the very clear request "please confirm flax contract." In that context, I think 99% of people would take that as confirmation of the contract rather than an "I got your message" response. But it does underline your point, which is correct: when it comes to contracts, it's wise to be as painfully clear as possible.

I often misread "please confirm" with "please confirm receipt of" because so often people ask if you got something at all.

Re: Canadian judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance

#32

Post by throwaway09223 »

paxys wrote: post #17
wnolens wrote: post #14

I don't know, I actually agree with the farmer here > “I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.” That is often how I use it on facebook messenger since it's so conveniently placed. It's fine that a verbal agreement is binding, but you should have to utter the sentence "I agree with the terms" or when asked a question with a yes/no answer, reply…

Courts judge intent, not technicality. If the farmer had replied "yes" and later said "oh I actually meant yes I will read the contract later" would you buy that excuse as well?

If people commonly sent a "yes" to acknowledge receipt of a message, then of course I would.

The problem here is that a thumbs up emoji doesn't mean yes. It can also mean "got it." When people send me huge documents I often send a thumbs up long before opening and reading the document.

Re: Canadian judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance

#33

Post by soco »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #9
LinuxBender wrote: post #2

Would this be equivalent to a "gentlemen's agreement" ? Is that a thing in Canada? It was or is in England AFAIK. I don't think that would work in the US. It is still not clear to me how legal documents on document sharing platforms are legally enforceable when signed by clicking buttons. I would expect a public notary to show up with hard copies for me to sign and photo-copy my state ID but that is not consistent an…

You certainly don't need a notarized physically signed copy to have a valid contract in the US. That makes it easier to prove you have a valid contract, but even just a verbal agreement can be an enforceable contract.

Same in Switzerland, although of course nobody will recommend relying on verbal contacts exactly because of all too possible "you said/he said" litigation. But yeah it happens, for both smaller and bigger contracts.

Re: Canadian judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance

#34

Post by petesergeant »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #9
LinuxBender wrote: post #2

Would this be equivalent to a "gentlemen's agreement" ? Is that a thing in Canada? It was or is in England AFAIK. I don't think that would work in the US. It is still not clear to me how legal documents on document sharing platforms are legally enforceable when signed by clicking buttons. I would expect a public notary to show up with hard copies for me to sign and photo-copy my state ID but that is not consistent an…

You certainly don't need a notarized physically signed copy to have a valid contract in the US. That makes it easier to prove you have a valid contract, but even just a verbal agreement can be an enforceable contract.

and it significantly lowers the chance that the client will fuck around and claim they don’t have to pay

Re: Canadian judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance

#35

Post by notyourwork »

wnolens wrote: post #14

I don't know, I actually agree with the farmer here > “I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.” That is often how I use it on facebook messenger since it's so conveniently placed. It's fine that a verbal agreement is binding, but you should have to utter the sentence "I agree with the terms" or when asked a question with a yes/no answer, reply…

I read a thumbs up in the same way I read "ok" which is affirming agreement.

    Me: "Want to goto the movies?" 

    You: "Ok".
We're going to the movies. I don't interpret this as you are acknowledging receipt of my message and will decide later whether or not you will attend.

I would apply the same rationale to a thumbs up. You are saying, ok. Others may disagree.

Re: Canadian judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance

#36

Post by c7b »

Not Canadian, but this seems hardly surprising to me. I once learnt (not the hard way) that contract acceptance can be highly implicit and doesn't even require any utterance, verbal or written, as for example in handing an item to a cashier, raising your hand, handing over a set of car keys, all in the right circumstances (those were all examples used). A thumbs up emoji, in response to the direct question 'Please confirm this contract', seems like a natural extension. And if it's used in a communication channel that was previously used for establishing contracts that were also honored (ie considered binding) by the farmer, I don't see how this case could have gone any differently. It doesn't mean that every thumbs up emoji is binding, just like taking a car on a test ride isn't. So 'Hey, can I have all your stuff?' followed by a thumbs up on Sat 3am of course won't be binding. But in this case, the context seems pretty clear.

Re: Canadian judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance

#37

Post by throwaway09223 »

unshavedyak wrote: post #18
wnolens wrote: post #14

I don't know, I actually agree with the farmer here > “I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.” That is often how I use it on facebook messenger since it's so conveniently placed. It's fine that a verbal agreement is binding, but you should have to utter the sentence "I agree with the terms" or when asked a question with a yes/no answer, reply…

I think i agree with you (but what do i know, hah) , but it sounds like it's useful to know we're in the wrong here. Which is to say, this seems to suggest we should alter behavior with these types of things to ensure specificity and explicitness.

We're not in the wrong here. Judges produce absurd findings with regularity -- this case is newsworthy because the finding is surprising and controversial.

If you paw around a bit in law you'll find judges sometimes going out of their way to misconstrue extremely explicit statements to reach the conclusion they want to reach. Being explicit can help, but there's no way to be 100% sure.

Re: Canadian judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance

#38

Post by theironhammer »

paxys wrote: post #17
wnolens wrote: post #14

I don't know, I actually agree with the farmer here > “I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.” That is often how I use it on facebook messenger since it's so conveniently placed. It's fine that a verbal agreement is binding, but you should have to utter the sentence "I agree with the terms" or when asked a question with a yes/no answer, reply…

Courts judge intent, not technicality. If the farmer had replied "yes" and later said "oh I actually meant yes I will read the contract later" would you buy that excuse as well?

If I was the one wanting a yes or no answer I would want explicit clarification on what the thumbs up meant.

Re: Canadian judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance

#39

Post by jxramos »

wnolens wrote: post #14

I don't know, I actually agree with the farmer here > “I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.” That is often how I use it on facebook messenger since it's so conveniently placed. It's fine that a verbal agreement is binding, but you should have to utter the sentence "I agree with the terms" or when asked a question with a yes/no answer, reply…

yah thumbs up is a good default low resolution acknowledgement rather than having to type. I say low resolution because some platforms have limited emoji availability to chose from, eg if no :ok: emoji exists to express with. I prefer giving emoji responses like this when I don't want to clutter up my text history that I often later go back and search for to hunt down past conversations. Reducing unnecessary text helps in those efforts, less to have to filter through.

Re: Canadian judge says thumbs-up emoji amounts to contract acceptance

#40

Post by HelloMcFly »

JohnFen wrote: post #16
wnolens wrote: post #14

I don't know, I actually agree with the farmer here > “I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message.” That is often how I use it on facebook messenger since it's so conveniently placed. It's fine that a verbal agreement is binding, but you should have to utter the sentence "I agree with the terms" or when asked a question with a yes/no answer, reply…

I disagree. The thumbs-up was in response to the very clear request "please confirm flax contract." In that context, I think 99% of people would take that as confirmation of the contract rather than an "I got your message" response. But it does underline your point, which is correct: when it comes to contracts, it's wise to be as painfully clear as possible.

> I think 99% of people would take that as confirmation

I think people are waaaayyy to confident that their perspective sits in the 99% majority. I realize you're being hyperbolic, but I'd expect this percentage to be closer to 50% myself.

Post reply on HN