[The Guardian] Canadian judge rules thumbs-up emoji can represent contract agreement

Canadian judge rules thumbs-up emoji can represent contract agreement


“This court readily acknowledges that a :+1: emoji is a non-traditional means to ‘sign’ a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a ‘signature’,” [Justice Keene] wrote.

:warning: Business owners, beware your text habits.

Well, even in the Age of eSignature, actual Business Professionals would likely eschew anything OTHER than a written contractual agreement, so…

1 Like

In some jurisdictions Verbal Contracts are binding. And in this particular case, a pattern of previous behavior was established by the plaintiff. However, one should be very wary of conducting business in a haphazard, nonchalant fashion.



Unobtainium my a$$… :innocent:


I recently handled a real estate sale primarily by text. Definitely a new experience for me, dealing with a motivated and knowledgeable Gen Z buyer.

However, we sent and signed contracts by email, and then did the closing traditionally, physically at the title office, with hard copies, etc.

I was on edge, waiting for everything terrible, but it was honestly the best (fastest, smoothest, easiest) real estate deal process I’ve ever been through (and not my first rodeo by far).

The difference with us, from the situation in the case, was the emailed contracts, IMO. Recognizing the seriousness of those, that neither party would be cool with a texted photo and thumbs up as legally binding, was respectful and professional, even with a new medium.

I think. But I’m a Xennial-X so what do I know?

The Road To Ruin IS Paved By Convenience…

Thankfully, neither you or your purchaser embraced that illogical approach.

Don’t worry about papy. :wink:

1 Like

Oh, I don’t worry about you - well, other than concern with the multiple rounds which you & yours have endured w/ C-19 - it’s the portion of our fellows who aren’t as level-headed as you’ve long demonstrated to be that trouble me.

1 Like

I think the point here is that “Corbin On Contracts” and the like come from a time before even fax machines, so signatures in toxic chemicals on compressed dead trees was the “contract”, and verbal representations and/or agreements required some level of performance to prove that they existed at all.

With email, text messages, telegram, et al, what do I trust more? (a) A paper contract that seems to be signed by someone I’ve never seen (b) a message over Wickr or Signal that confirms a prior discussion that took place over telegram or email © an electronic document “signed” via the docu-sign 3rd party server that purports to be the “trusted impartial party” (d) a text message thumbs up in reply to “do you agree to purchase my 2100 widgets for $10 each, FOB San Diego?”

Well, I’d pick (b), as at least the message can be verified as really from who it is said to be from. The other two can be fooled as to who the party is. The old paper contracts had verification built in, as one needed to know one’s attorney, and that “verified identity” for all practical purposes. But if there is no denial of identity of the parties, the choice with the LONGEST COMMUNICATIONS CHAIN is the one that “proves the existence of an agreement and contract”. Best to have a clean copy of the communications in the hands of a 3rd party, so one can subpoena and present the undeniable words exchanged.

Contracts don’t really matter as long as everyone is performing and acting in good faith. It is only when the pooper-scooper starts rotating at high velocity that words exchanged matter, and people start to quibble over what the agreement was.

You mean like buying lots of items via telegram?

1 Like

Docusign has been a staple of the real estate industry for some time. SOMETIMES pen does not touch physical paper until closing now!


This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.