People, the defendant had a history of using 👍to accept a contract with the aggrieved. Had done it NP a dozen times before. He was trying to use a technicality to weasel out of breaching a contract he obviously agreed to when he couldn’t fulfill it.
Not only that but by the end of the contract price was up, so farmer would not make as much as on the free market.
Did the article actually say he accepted with thumbs up before? Thought it just said he'd accepted via text.
The point is that now there's a precedent and going forward, that emoji counts as a signature
Not quite, and for 2 reasons:
I'm not sure if it is the same in Canada, but in the US it is only a 'precedent' if ruled by an appeals court, and
The Judge found the Defendant had a history of tersely accepting agreed upon (by later full completion of) contracts. If, for example you had texted me a similar contract and historically when you did I typically answered "yes, I agree to these contract details. Expect Flax in the Fall", but one time I texted đź‘Ťand then a day later said "nah, I don't agree to this contract" you'd have a case but I'd almost certainly win under the same Judge because now the argument 'the đź‘Ť was just confirming receipt but not approval of the contract' holds water.
People, the defendant had a history of using 👍to accept a contract with the aggrieved. Had done it NP a dozen times before. He was trying to use a technicality to weasel out of breaching a contract he obviously agreed to when he couldn’t fulfill it.
Not only that but by the end of the contract price was up, so farmer would not make as much as on the free market.
Did the article actually say he accepted with thumbs up before? Thought it just said he'd accepted via text.
The point is that now there's a precedent and going forward, that emoji counts as a signature
Not quite, and for 2 reasons: