However, the flax was never delivered, and the supplier Achter argued that the use of a thumbs-up emoji (□) could not convey an acceptance of contractual terms, and therefore there was no legally binding agreement for the supply. The case of South West Terminal Ltd v Achter Land & Cattle SKKB 116 concerned an action for breach of contract where South West Terminal ( SWT) purchased flax from Achter Land & Cattle ( Achter), with delivery expected by the end of November 2021. some note or memorandum in writing of the contract made and signed…". What set the case apart was that the Court found that a thumbs up emoji (□) could be used to confirm a contract whilst also meeting the requirements of the Sale of Goods Act that required "…. For the most part the case involved core facts that were not in dispute, with the decision being the application of contract law and the Saskatchewan Sale of Goods Act RSS 1978 in the context of modern day communications. In a recent ruling, the King's Bench for Saskatchewan in Canada (equivalent to a state Supreme Court in Australia) acknowledged that the use of a thumbs-up emoji (□) can constitute acceptance of contractual terms. The King's Bench for Saskatchewan stated this use of modern technology " appears to be the new reality in Canadian society and courts will have to be ready to meet the new challenges that may arise from the use of emojis and the like". In Brief: A Canadian Superior Court has ruled that the use of a thumbs-up emoji " □ " was effective to constitute an acceptance of contractual terms.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |