Saskatchewan’s highest court has upheld a ruling in a case involving the use of an emoji, ruling that a thumbs-up emoji met the requirements for a legally binding agreement. The Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan confirmed this week the decision of Court of King’s Bench Justice Timothy Keene, who had found that a thumbs-up emoji sent by farmer Chris Achter in response to a grain contract from Kent Mickleborough, a buyer with South West Terminal, was valid.
The court ruled that Justice Keene made no error when he concluded that the emoji indicated Achter’s agreement to the terms of the contract. According to the decision, a reasonable observer, considering the circumstances, would interpret the thumbs-up emoji as a clear expression of Achter’s consent to be bound by the contract.
The case dates back to March 2021, when Mickleborough sent Achter a text with the details of a flax delivery contract. Achter responded with just a thumbs-up emoji, without any additional text. When Achter failed to deliver the flax as agreed, Mickleborough took him to court for breaching the contract. The court ordered Achter to pay more than $82,000 in damages, plus interest and legal costs. Achter argued that the emoji only signified that he had received the contract and hadn’t had time to review it. He also claimed his flax crop had failed, and that he would not have agreed to the contract without an “act of God” clause.
Mickleborough, however, contended that the emoji was a clear agreement, noting that Achter had previously confirmed contracts via text messages in the same manner. The Appeal Court sided with the original ruling, stating that the judge had considered prior communications between the two parties, finding it common for them to finalize contracts through text.
The judge also referenced the Dictionary.com definition of the thumbs-up emoji, which describes it as a symbol used to express agreement, approval, or encouragement in digital communication. The court acknowledged that while Achter may not have been aware that his text reply legally constituted a signature, this did not negate the legal implications of his actions. The key point, the court emphasized, was that Achter intentionally communicated his agreement in a way that verified the message as coming from him.
