• Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    People, the defendant had a history of using 👍to accept a contract with the aggrieved. Had done it NP a dozen times before. He was trying to use a technicality to weasel out of breaching a contract he obviously agreed to when he couldn’t fulfill it.

    • IronDonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did the article actually say he accepted with thumbs up before? Thought it just said he’d accepted via text.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The point is that now there’s a precedent and going forward, that emoji counts as a signature

      • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not quite, and for 2 reasons:

        1. I’m not sure if it is the same in Canada, but in the US it is only a ‘precedent’ if ruled by an appeals court, and
        2. The Judge found the Defendant had a history of tersely accepting agreed upon (by later full completion of) contracts. If, for example you had texted me a similar contract and historically when you did I typically answered “yes, I agree to these contract details. Expect Flax in the Fall”, but one time I texted 👍and then a day later said “nah, I don’t agree to this contract” you’d have a case but I’d almost certainly win under the same Judge because now the argument ‘the 👍 was just confirming receipt but not approval of the contract’ holds water.