82,891
edits
Template:In writing capsule: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Any of these can, in theory, convey [[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[consideration]] as well can a written or oral communication. | Any of these can, in theory, convey [[offer]], [[acceptance]] and [[consideration]] as well can a written or oral communication. | ||
The King’s Bench of Saskatchewan — not an English court to be sure, but of persuasive value, especially when speaking this much sense — has recently affirmed the [[JC]]’s conviction about emojis by the way. In an argument about whether a merchant was bound to supply a consignment of flax on the back of an exchange of SMS messages: | |||
{{quote|“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 ... and as I have found above – to convey ... acceptance of the flax contract. | |||
I therefore find that under these circumstances that the provisions of ''[the Canadian Sale of Goods Act 1978]'' have been met and the flax contract is therefore enforceable. ”<ref>''South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land, 2023 SKKB 116''</ref>}} | |||