cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/1255003

A Canadian judge has ruled that the popular “thumbs-up” emoji not only can be used as a contract agreement, but is just as valid as an actual signature. The Saskatchewan-based judge made the ruling on the grounds that the courts must adapt to the “new reality” of how people communicate, as originally reported by The Guardian.

  • kevincox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    A lot of people don’t understand that there is nothing magical about a written contract with a signature. If you agree to something you have a contract. It doesn’t matter if it is written, spoken, gestured or anything else. Written contracts with signatures are often preferred because it is very clear that there was an agreement and what was agreed to. But just about any method of agreeing is just as binding.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like you said, written contracts lack vagueness. The interaction leading to the Thumbs Up was pretty damn vague. Validates my refusal to ever use emojis.

      • kevincox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Have you read the article? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/06/canada-judge-thumbs-up-emoji-sign-contract. I think that the thumbs up was actually pretty clear in this case. He had a history of accepting contracts which had already been discussed verbally with a short text like “Ok” or “Looks good”. It seems very likely that “👍” meant the same thing.

        Emoji doesn’t have anything to do with it. The fact is that he was responding to a legal agreement informally. There is really no difference between “Looks good” and “👍”. This is only a story because he tried to weasel out when the price shot up.