Saskatchewan farmer's thumbs-up emoji response will cost him $82K

A Saskatchewan farmer must pay $82,000 after a judge ruled that using the thumbs-up emoji can be equivalent to a contractual agreement.

According to the decision from the King’s Bench Court for Saskatchewan, South West Terminal (SWT) — a grain and crop inputs company — has purchased grain from a farming corporation called Achter, since 2012.

On March 26, 2021, Kent Mickleborough, a representative from SWT, sent a text message to a few grain producers, including the owners of Achter, with information about purchasing flax.

One of Achter’s owners got in touch with Mickleborough via text, and this was followed by a phone call between both parties.

Following the conversation, Mickleborough drafted a contract for Chris Achter, who operates the company.

The agreement noted that Achter would sell SWT 86 metric tonnes of flax at $669.26 per tonne, with a delivery date set for November 2021.

Mickleborough signed the contract and took a picture of the document with his phone.

He proceeded to text a photo of the contract with the message “Please confirm the flax contract.”

Achter texted back with a thumbs-up emoji.

But come November, the flax was not delivered to SWT.

According to the court documents, Mickleborough said he had previously arranged several contracts with Achter in the past, with Achter confirming the terms of the contracts by texting short replies such as “yup”, “looks good,” or “ok.”

“So in short, what we have is an uncontested pattern of entering into what both parties knew and accepted to be valid and binding deferred delivery purchase contracts on a number of occasions,” wrote Justice T.J. Keen in the summary judgment.

In his affidavit, Achter said that his use of the thumb’s up emoji “simply confirmed that [he] received the Flax contract. It was not a confirmation that [he] agreed with the terms of the Flax contract.”

Keen ruled in favour of SWT, stating that the contract was “valid” between both parties and “that the defendant breached by failing to deliver the flax.”

“In my view, a reasonable bystander knowing all of the background would come to the objective understanding that the parties had reached consensus ad item – a meeting of the minds – just like they had done on numerous other occasions,” stated Keen.

“Additionally, I find under these circumstances a 👍 emoji is “an action in electronic form” that can be used to allow to express acceptance…” he stated.

Keen acknowledged the case is “novel” and it “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.”

Do you think this ruling was fair? Let us know in the comments.