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 11: | Line 11: | ||
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: | ===Authority on legal effect of emojis=== | ||
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. | |||
The plaintiff drew up a contract to purchase SWT 86 metric tonnes of flax from the defendant, wet-signed it, took a photo of the contract and texted the photo to the defendant with the text message: “Please confirm flax contract”. | |||
The defendant texted back “👍”. | |||
The defendant didn’t eventually deliver the flax, and by the time the plaintiff could source alternative flax prices had gone up. The plaintiff claimed damages. | |||
The defendant argued the thumbs-up emoji simply confirmed that he received the Flax contract but was not acceptance of its terms. He claimed he was waiting for the full terms and conditions of the Flax Contract to review and sign. Partly on the basis of a prior [[course of dealing]] with deals done on monosyllabic text messages, the court wasn’t having it: | |||
{{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. | {{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>}} | 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>''[https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skkb/doc/2023/2023skkb116/2023skkb116.html South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land, 2023 SKKB 116]''</ref>}} | ||