You’d better think twice before responding to an ask from your boss with a 👍. A Saskatchewan court has ruled in favour of making the emoji an official agreement to enter a contract.
The New York Times covered the decision, from the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan, which is based on a dispute between a farmer and grain buyer in 2021. Kent Mickelborough approached farmer Chris Atcher to purchase 87 metric tons of flax — Mickelborough signed a contract for the sale and sent a photo of it to Atcher, who replied with a thumbs-up emoji. Atcher argued that the emoji was simply to confirm receipt of the contract, while Mickelborough argued that it was confirmation he was entering the agreement as the buyer also asked for confirmation on the contract along with the picture.
“This court readily acknowledges that a 👍 emoji is a non-traditional means to ‘sign’ a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a ‘signature’ – to identify the signator (Chris using his unique cell phone number) and as I have found above – to convey Achter’s acceptance of the flax contract,” Justice T.J. Keene wrote in the decision. “I therefore find that under these circumstances that the provisions of s. 6 of the [Sale of Goods Act] have been met and the flax contract is therefore enforceable. There is no issue in this regard that requires a trial.”
According to the decision, Atcher and Mickelborough had a long-standing business relationship, and in past agreements over purchases, Atcher would reply to Mickelborough’s request to confirm contracts with written responses like “Looks good” or “yup.” Justice Keene wrote that under the circumstances listed in the case, the thumbs-up emoji is an “action in an electronic form” that can be treated as acceptance of the document.
The case is setting a new standard that is changing the linguistic role of emojis in official communications — at least in Saskatchewan. Atcher’s counsel warned the judge that this decision would “open the flood gates” for other cases to decide what other emojis might mean, like the handshake emoji. However, Justice Keene remains steadfast that the court cannot stand in the way of the changing tides of how we use technology.
“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,” he wrote.