@goat A version, in theory of Stare decisis, right?
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
Was an autopen involved? 😎
Yeesh, X is a foreign substance for this code
Transaction was sale of grain from a farmer to a coop. The parties had a history of transacting business via email that began during covid. Coop prepared a contract to buy grain, took a picture of it, emailed the image to farmer, farmer responded with thumbs up. Nothing else.
I don't know the answer to this, but do farm products constitute goods under the UCC? If so, there are all kinds of rules like course of dealing, etc that might make it binding.
emoji law is sooooo underdeveloped 🤣 🤣 🤣
Shoving carrramrod into a locker since 2024.
Transaction was sale of grain from a farmer to a coop. The parties had a history of transacting business via email that began during covid. Coop prepared a contract to buy grain, took a picture of it, emailed the image to farmer, farmer responded with thumbs up. Nothing else.
I don't know the answer to this, but do farm products constitute goods under the UCC? If so, there are all kinds of rules like course of dealing, etc that might make it binding.
emoji law is sooooo underdeveloped 🤣 🤣 🤣
I know right? What if the farmer and coop were contracting to sell/buy eggplants via text? So much could be lost (or discovered) in translation.
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
Seems like it's an accepted offer. Unclear whether there was consideration actually provided, or whether collateral estoppel could be invoked.
somebody needs to do research and figure out how English common law applies to emogis. I’m sure there is a Kings Bench opinion somewhere.
This case was in Canada.
Transaction was sale of grain from a farmer to a coop. The parties had a history of transacting business via email that began during covid. Coop prepared a contract to buy grain, took a picture of it, emailed the image to farmer, farmer responded with thumbs up. Nothing else.
I don't know the answer to this, but do farm products constitute goods under the UCC? If so, there are all kinds of rules like course of dealing, etc that might make it binding.
emoji law is sooooo underdeveloped 🤣 🤣 🤣
However, in the U.S., UCC Article 2 does apply to crops. See UCC 2-107: https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-107
Canada? Was this concerning peat moss?
IANAL, but I would think that the contract is not binding because emojis can have multiple assumed meanings. A legal binding contract usually requires a signature because a signature is a unique adder to the document that someone affixes with the knowledge that they are taking ownership of a portion of the contract.
An emoji is not a unique stamp, so I would think there is wiggle room there. You can make a claim that your email is hacked and someone else accepted the terms of the contract with the emoji. That is a more difficult position to prove if a signature is involved.
@squeakyclean The "pissed off me" would also argue that the emoji sender knew it could be cause to consider it being a variable answer giving him either a firm answer defense or a reply that meant "maybe".
If the conversation happened on the sidewalk, and the answer was totally non verbal, and he simply sent a "thumbs up" . would that hold up? Would the other party even accept that as a contract?
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
@squeakyclean The "pissed off me" would also argue that the emoji sender knew it could be cause to consider it being a variable answer giving him either a firm answer defense or a reply that meant "maybe".
If the conversation happened on the sidewalk, and the answer was totally non verbal, and he simply sent a "thumbs up" . would that hold up? Would the other party even accept that as a contract?
At that point it is more in line with a verbal contract though (I would think, again, IANAL).
That's kinda the whole point about putting things down on paper. It is safety for both parties to have a binding document. Verbal agreements offer way too much ability for someone to go back on their word and the courts can't really do anything about it because both sides are going to present their version of the conversation and there is no proof to counter either side.
At least in a text message agreement there is a documented exchange, but it still strains the definition of a binding contract.
While "The People's Court" isn't exactly a great representation of our legal system, that was one of the most important things I learned from watching that show 30 years ago is that no matter how good of a friend you are with someone else, you ALWAYS put things down on paper when agreeing to buy / sell something. I would say that 90% of the cases where someone showed up with documentation compared to the opposition just going off of their testimony, the guy with the documentation would win (even if the guy with just the testimony was probably the more deserving side to win)..