I mean if you’re going to dismiss the other party with simply a “👍” that leaves it very open to interpretation. IMO farmer deserves it. Plus, if you read the backstory and circumstances, this was a renewal of a contract they had signed many times over many years before, implying the thumb would be a positive affirmation and not a neutral one.
Want to save some money? Type “let me get back to you” instead!
I mean, it makes complete sense that they’re fighting this hard once you realize their business models are only remotely viable because they exploit the fuck out of their workers.
“How are we supposed to pay slave wages if you force us to treat our employees independent contractors with a minimum level of decency? Think of the venture capital that could be lost if we don’t become profitable!”
Glad to see these companies are flailing. If you can’t afford to pay a minimum wage that keeps up with inflation then your company shouldn’t exist.
Yeah, fuck those companies. Though I did love back when Grubhub was constantly cranking out these ridiculous offers to lure customers in. That was kinda nice…
I’m a lawyer (though admittedly not in Canada!)–this doesn’t sound as absurd as the headlines read, and I would hesitate to to form opinions on any case on the basis of headlines or blurbs. That said, looking at other sources it seems there’s more here than the posted article conveys:
The judge noted that Mr. Achter and Mr. Mickleborough had had a longstanding business relationship and that, in the past, when Mr. Mr. Mickleborough had texted Mr. Achter contracts for durum wheat, Mr. Achter had responded by succinctly texting “looks good,” “ok” or “yup.”
Both parties clearly understood these terse responses were meant to be confirmation of the contract and “not a mere acknowledgment of the receipt of the contract” by Mr. Achter, wrote Justice T.J. Keene of the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan. And each time, Mr. Achter had delivered the grain as contracted and had been paid.
Looks like they had a long standing business relationship where this sort of communication had been the common understood form of acceptance in the past. It’s also important to note the guy only tried backing out of the deal after a price fluctuation meant he’d be taking a relative loss.
I’d want to see all of the facts and arguments, but this seems reasonable from what we can see reported.
Yup makes sense to me, very much in line with my laymans understanding of contract law. It’s very driven by social context as it is. I wonder how that differs somewhere like Japan where official seals are expected even for minor documents.
Sounds like everyone involved was making moves to commit to it initially which was probably the biggest factor here.
I’d be interested as well, and it’s actually a bit of an open question in the US even whether an emoji can satisfy Statute of Frauds requirements. Not every contract needs to be in writing, but the Statute of Frauds requires that certain types of contracts do need to have a written contract and agreement–sale of goods valued more than $500.00 is one of those categories. Canada has its own various Statute of Frauds laws, but that’s way outside of my jurisdiction, and I can’t tell from the reporting whether any applied or were considered in this case.
Emojis are the focus of more and more litigation these days, and it’s really interesting watching how these cases play out. Here’s a good source (US focused) from Lexis Nexis discussing emojis in contract litigation:
Apparently “💩” has been the official answer from Twitter’s press relationship contact for some months now… would be funny if it got considered as they’re making legal statements.
engadget.com
Newest