I remember looking into the validity of emojis in government records as there was no real guideline or indication on whether emojis constituted official approvals (or equivalents) from senior...
I remember looking into the validity of emojis in government records as there was no real guideline or indication on whether emojis constituted official approvals (or equivalents) from senior staff (political and non-political).
It was an issue because these were people that frequently did work—government business—over things like instant messages and emojis were frequently used as responses since, you know, they're modern people in modern times and people like using emojis now.
Nothing ever really came of it since our DM at the time decided to explicitly state that any emojis from her constituted an official response and that was that. But I'm not surprised at all that there has been no official policy or legal framework established for emojis in Canada, our recordkeeping and information archival policies are stuck in the early 90's.
No, really. I looked it up at the time. Ontario's guidance on instant messaging for government employees is based on an issue of an email sent from a work Blackberry during a council session in the mid-2000's, and that was further based on an earlier ruling about pagers in courtrooms from the early 90s. So, basically, the Ontario Privacy Commissioner's and Chief Archivist's policies about instant messaging in 2023 are based on pagers in a courtroom in 1994.
As a reminder, the basic elements of a contract in a common law system (as used in English Canada) are offer, acceptance, and consideration. Here, the offer and consideration are obviously...
As a reminder, the basic elements of a contract in a common law system (as used in English Canada) are offer, acceptance, and consideration. Here, the offer and consideration are obviously established based on the commercial contract, so the only question was acceptance.
Save for a few areas where the law specifically requires otherwise (such as land transfers), acceptance of a contract can take many different forms. This is why 'verbal contracts' are enforceable, for example. Here, the judge had to make the fact-based decision of whether the thumbs-up emoji counted as acceptance. In that analysis, the parties' history and previous behavior was relevant.
This does not create a general rule that the thumbs-up emoji must imply agreement to the terms of a contract, only that it may.
Ambiguity. "Do you agree to this contract?" "Yes." This is very clear. "Does this deal work for you?" "👍" This is pretty clear, but many emoji are more ambiguous or have multiple meanings, which...
Ambiguity.
"Do you agree to this contract?" "Yes." This is very clear.
"Does this deal work for you?" "👍" This is pretty clear, but many emoji are more ambiguous or have multiple meanings, which can make it less clear to a third party that both parties were clear on what was being communicated.
Plus couldn't there be some cultural implications of certain hand gestures? Like if an Iranian firm gave this as a response to a Canadian company it would be more ambiguous because for Iran the...
Plus couldn't there be some cultural implications of certain hand gestures? Like if an Iranian firm gave this as a response to a Canadian company it would be more ambiguous because for Iran the real gesture of a thumbs up means "sit on it" (source: Google search) and is considered insulting but I'm not sure if the emoji would be similarly culturally insulting.
I assume judges would make decisions based on whatever they understand about cultural context? If it ever got that far. That doesn't mean ambiguity is a good idea, though. Best to be as clear as...
I assume judges would make decisions based on whatever they understand about cultural context? If it ever got that far.
That doesn't mean ambiguity is a good idea, though. Best to be as clear as you can about what your agreement is.
Very good point this was a specific regional case with historical text conversations that helped guide the judge. The title does make it seem like a broad ruling but context does definitely matter!
Very good point this was a specific regional case with historical text conversations that helped guide the judge. The title does make it seem like a broad ruling but context does definitely matter!
Maybe a closer analogue in written/verbal English for an equally ambiguous response is "mhm", or "uh huh", or something like that. You can have ambiguity in any form of communication: it's not...
Maybe a closer analogue in written/verbal English for an equally ambiguous response is "mhm", or "uh huh", or something like that.
You can have ambiguity in any form of communication: it's not unique to emoji but because their meanings are more fluid (and they're more recent than words) it's more likely. It's the job of the judge to resolve the ambiguity and interpret the intent.
ETA: On reading the article again the ambiguity the judge had to resolve (and what the defence contended) was that 👍 was being used to mean "I've received the message" rather than "I agree to its contents". Which is interesting! In the absence of other contexts both meanings are plausible. "Yes" might well be equally ambiguous in response to "please confirm the flax contract": "yes (I will review it)" vs "yes (I agree to it)".
I do not think it was clear in this case. It appears like the farmer meant it as confirmation of receipt while the buyer interpreted as agreeing to the contract.
I do not think it was clear in this case. It appears like the farmer meant it as confirmation of receipt while the buyer interpreted as agreeing to the contract.
What is also interesting is emoji are rendered differently based on device and/or application used (see emojipedia for a list). Now, the thumbs up is pretty consistent across all plattforms and...
What is also interesting is emoji are rendered differently based on device and/or application used (see emojipedia for a list). Now, the thumbs up is pretty consistent across all plattforms and time, but opening up emoji to possibly convey meaning in place of words would also mean that the court would have to look at how the thing is rendered on each of the devices and this gets technical pretty quick. Maybe the other guy is using a custom Android ROM with a different emoji font that changes the meaning or something like that.
For some reason this reminds me of the meme of Dr. Strange in Endgame, where he gestures to Tony Stark “one” with his hands. Except it wasn’t “one” (in the meme), it was “up”. As in FLY AWAY IRON...
For some reason this reminds me of the meme of Dr. Strange in Endgame, where he gestures to Tony Stark “one” with his hands.
Except it wasn’t “one” (in the meme), it was “up”. As in FLY AWAY IRON MAN, THANOS CAN’T FLY.
I shall use this as part of my contrived defence in court next time I am challenged with failing to live up to contractual obligations following assumed acceptance as indicated by a “thumbs up”.
Hey, I don't think you're doing it maliciously, but what you're doing in this thread is not contributing to Tildes in any meaningful way. Tildes is about in-depth content, in the posts and in the...
Hey, I don't think you're doing it maliciously, but what you're doing in this thread is not contributing to Tildes in any meaningful way. Tildes is about in-depth content, in the posts and in the comments, and what you're doing is degrading that experience. Please delete what you've done in this thread, and when you comment next, think about whether you're adding to the discussion.
I remember looking into the validity of emojis in government records as there was no real guideline or indication on whether emojis constituted official approvals (or equivalents) from senior staff (political and non-political).
It was an issue because these were people that frequently did work—government business—over things like instant messages and emojis were frequently used as responses since, you know, they're modern people in modern times and people like using emojis now.
Nothing ever really came of it since our DM at the time decided to explicitly state that any emojis from her constituted an official response and that was that. But I'm not surprised at all that there has been no official policy or legal framework established for emojis in Canada, our recordkeeping and information archival policies are stuck in the early 90's.
No, really. I looked it up at the time. Ontario's guidance on instant messaging for government employees is based on an issue of an email sent from a work Blackberry during a council session in the mid-2000's, and that was further based on an earlier ruling about pagers in courtrooms from the early 90s. So, basically, the Ontario Privacy Commissioner's and Chief Archivist's policies about instant messaging in 2023 are based on pagers in a courtroom in 1994.
👍
As a reminder, the basic elements of a contract in a common law system (as used in English Canada) are offer, acceptance, and consideration. Here, the offer and consideration are obviously established based on the commercial contract, so the only question was acceptance.
Save for a few areas where the law specifically requires otherwise (such as land transfers), acceptance of a contract can take many different forms. This is why 'verbal contracts' are enforceable, for example. Here, the judge had to make the fact-based decision of whether the thumbs-up emoji counted as acceptance. In that analysis, the parties' history and previous behavior was relevant.
This does not create a general rule that the thumbs-up emoji must imply agreement to the terms of a contract, only that it may.
I mean, that seems to make sense to me. Like if I say "yes" in writing, it can be binding, so why not the emoji form of a yes?
Ambiguity.
"Do you agree to this contract?" "Yes." This is very clear.
"Does this deal work for you?" "👍" This is pretty clear, but many emoji are more ambiguous or have multiple meanings, which can make it less clear to a third party that both parties were clear on what was being communicated.
Plus couldn't there be some cultural implications of certain hand gestures? Like if an Iranian firm gave this as a response to a Canadian company it would be more ambiguous because for Iran the real gesture of a thumbs up means "sit on it" (source: Google search) and is considered insulting but I'm not sure if the emoji would be similarly culturally insulting.
I assume judges would make decisions based on whatever they understand about cultural context? If it ever got that far.
That doesn't mean ambiguity is a good idea, though. Best to be as clear as you can about what your agreement is.
Very good point this was a specific regional case with historical text conversations that helped guide the judge. The title does make it seem like a broad ruling but context does definitely matter!
Maybe a closer analogue in written/verbal English for an equally ambiguous response is "mhm", or "uh huh", or something like that.
You can have ambiguity in any form of communication: it's not unique to emoji but because their meanings are more fluid (and they're more recent than words) it's more likely. It's the job of the judge to resolve the ambiguity and interpret the intent.
ETA: On reading the article again the ambiguity the judge had to resolve (and what the defence contended) was that 👍 was being used to mean "I've received the message" rather than "I agree to its contents". Which is interesting! In the absence of other contexts both meanings are plausible. "Yes" might well be equally ambiguous in response to "please confirm the flax contract": "yes (I will review it)" vs "yes (I agree to it)".
I do not think it was clear in this case. It appears like the farmer meant it as confirmation of receipt while the buyer interpreted as agreeing to the contract.
👉👌
👍
What is also interesting is emoji are rendered differently based on device and/or application used (see emojipedia for a list). Now, the thumbs up is pretty consistent across all plattforms and time, but opening up emoji to possibly convey meaning in place of words would also mean that the court would have to look at how the thing is rendered on each of the devices and this gets technical pretty quick. Maybe the other guy is using a custom Android ROM with a different emoji font that changes the meaning or something like that.
For some reason this reminds me of the meme of Dr. Strange in Endgame, where he gestures to Tony Stark “one” with his hands.
Except it wasn’t “one” (in the meme), it was “up”. As in FLY AWAY IRON MAN, THANOS CAN’T FLY.
I shall use this as part of my contrived defence in court next time I am challenged with failing to live up to contractual obligations following assumed acceptance as indicated by a “thumbs up”.
👍
Hey, I don't think you're doing it maliciously, but what you're doing in this thread is not contributing to Tildes in any meaningful way. Tildes is about in-depth content, in the posts and in the comments, and what you're doing is degrading that experience. Please delete what you've done in this thread, and when you comment next, think about whether you're adding to the discussion.