Appeal dismissed in Sask. ‘thumbs up’ emoji case

An appeal to a legal case that made international headlines has been dismissed by Saskatchewan’s highest court.

The Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan upheld the original verdict – which found that a “thumbs up” emoji was a legally binding agreement between Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. (ALC) and South West Terminal Ltd. (SWT)

On March 26, 2021, a representative of SWT sent a text to the owners of Achter with details of a flax delivery agreement. Following several calls, the contract was drafted.

The SWT representative took a photo of the signed contract and sent it to one of Achter’s owners with the message, “Please confirm flax contract.”

The Achter owner responded with a “thumbs up” emoji with no accompanying text.

However, the 87 metric tonnes of flax was not delivered to SWT in November.

SWT sued ALC to enforce the contract it claimed was formed in the exchange – while ALC asserted there was no agreement, and if there was one, it would be unenforceable due to Section 6(1) of The Sale of Goods Act.

Section 6 reads: “A contract for the sale of goods of the value of $50 or upwards shall not be enforceable by action unless the buyer shall accept part of the goods so sold and actually receive the same or give something in earnest to bind the contract or in part payment or unless some note or memorandum in writing of the contract is made and signed by the party to be charged or his agent in that behalf.”

The court’s eventual decision took into account ALC’s and SWT’s long standing business relationship – going as far back as 2012 – as well as previous agreements which were agreed to through one-word messages such as “yup” and “ok.”

ALC appealed the decision, standing by its defence position – which in part argued that the “thumbs up” used by Mr. Achter was meant to confirm that he received the agreement – and was not agreeing to it.

However, in a lengthy decision published on Dec. 16 by Chief Justice Robert W. Leurer, the appeal was rejected.

The court’s analysis found that a contract was made, there was an agreement on the essential terms of the contract and the contract was signed in the form of Mr. Achter’s text response.

“The judge did not err when he found that a contract arose between the parties and that Mr. Achter’s text message satisfied the requirements of S. 6 of The Sale of Goods Act, including the need for a signature,” Leuer explained.

“ALC’s appeal must therefore be dismissed. SWT is entitled to its taxable costs against ALC.”

SWT was originally awarded $82,200 in damages, plus interests and court costs.

The appeal noted that SWT is entitled to its taxable costs against ALC.