9 ms·

What's next? Double Green Check icon in WhatsApp message with a contract can be as legally binding as signing the contract? Why people are wasting many million

What's next? Double Green Check icon in WhatsApp message with a contract can be as legally binding as signing the contract? Why people are wasting many millions of dollars to implement cryptographically-secure electronic signature systems, if a simple thumbs-up emoji is enogh? ;) Some contarcts can be closed verbaly in-person, but this is not the case, because they didn't talked in-person, but over a remote digital medium. Common Law system is flawed.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
> What's next? If you text :eggplant: to your wife, then you might get her pregnant!
dazc 3y ago
You can argue the 'green check icon' was not entered by you and a screenshot of such could have been created by any competent 12 year old. Accepting you did enter the icon, and the screenshot is accurate, then saying you didn't mean it to be interpreted as an agreement is another matter. I think this is where your digital signature wins.
- nivertech 3y ago
  Any written communication (such as email or SMS) can be considered as evidence in court (NOTE: just evidence, not a signature). That's why M&A departments don't do deals or negotiations over email. But that's long form. Emojis on the other side are very short. It's a new medium and doesn't have a stable interpretation yet. Also, any contract negotiation is a process (sometimes even a Saga ;) Plucking a single message out of a sequence of messages is wrong.
dsego 3y ago
You could argue that a thumbs-up emoji is equivalent to a handshake and a verbal agreement.
- atq2119 3y ago
  That is precisely the argument, and it is a perfectly reasonable one, especially in the right context.
- nivertech 3y ago
  Verbal agreement usually done in person. Maybe it can be done over the phone using voice communication. But using a simple emoji is stretching it out, as there is no context: you can't see the counterpart's face, you don't hear their intonations in their voice. You don't even have UPPER CASE or punctuation marks.
  - fsh 3y ago
    From the article: Chris Achter, the owner of a farming company in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, had sent a thumbs-up emoji in response to a photograph of a flax-buying contract from a grains buyer in 2021. Sending a written contract should provide more than enough context to the counterpart.
    - nivertech 3y ago
      I'm talking about the context in the reply (outgoing message), not the context in the incomming message. The most obvious explanation is the confirmation of the recieval. > Mr Achter said he used it only to indicate that he had received the contract, but not to indicate his agreement. I also frequently have fat finger emojis in Slack, Discord or WhatsApp, now it's legally bounded? I live in the country with the Common Law system, but even worse than in Canada, as the judges here don't care about the written contracts. The former President of the Supreme Court even said something like "I don't care what's written in the contract", and basically had arbitrary rulings based on his own understandings. Because of that most tech companies here have an arbitration clause in contracts that all disputes will be resolved outside of our local jurisdiction. Usually in Delaware.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        > I also frequently have fat finger emojis in Slack, Discord or WhatsApp, now it's legally bounded? I would bet my business prospects that no court would conclude that a thumbs-up followed less than a minute later by a “disregard previous typo” message as binding acceptance. This is not some trick “no backsies” situation, but rather a case where a pattern of short acceptance messages was continued, just in picture form. Other than the defendant objecting after the fact, I think most reasonable people would look at the pattern of communication and reach the same conclusion the court did.
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
A contract is a meeting of minds, with agreement between the parties. Even a verbal agreement is legally binding. Of course, it is hard to prove such an agreement exists to others, so we create a record of the agreement. If there is evidence that such agreement exists, then the contract is enforceable, and that is all that has happened here. Using a thumbs up emoji to indicate agreement may look a bit silly, but the intent is apparently clear.
- jowea 3y ago
  Another article on this trial also pointed out that in the past making a variety of scribbles were considered agreement since the majority of the population was illiterate.
  - User23 3y ago
    You can draw a cartoon penis or anything else on docusign and it’s still binding.
    - CPLX 3y ago
      Can you cite a source for that?
- constantly 3y ago
  Broadly correct with the caveat that there are some restrictions on verbal contracts. For example, I cannot sell my house verbally. Or my car (unless it’s a really bad car).
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    >Or my car (unless it’s a really bad car). Is there a legal standard for this? I like to imagine a legal dispute in front of a judge if the vehicle in question is or is not a total POS that can be sold on the spot.
    - 3y ago
krisoft 3y ago
> Why people are wasting many millions of dollars to implement cryptographically-secure electronic signature systems, if a simple thumbs-up emoji is enogh? ;) People insist on formalities (of all kind) precisely in order to avoid these kind of lawsuits. Paying all those lawyers is not cheap. > What's next? It is not like this was some hapless chap who got suckered into a deal. They had a business relationship going on for years and they have agreed on similar deals with not much more than a thumbs up emoji. > Common Law system is flawed. What aspect of this story makes you think that?
- nivertech 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36644084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36644084
- ncphil 3y ago
  Although I'm not a fan of the common law system, it isn't the problem here. The problem is a culture that so elevates informality that there are no guardrails left to ensure careful, thoughtful, deliberation even in business deals involving tens of thousands of dollars. Next up, declaration of war by tweet.
wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
We should go back to common law. Your word is your word, whether that's digital or not. If you sends a positive confirmation in the form of a emoiji and then never follow up that's on you. He had for sure a week or more to clarify he could or couldn't fulfill the order without repurcussions.
xg15 3y ago
I think if anything, a double green check would mean the opposite: The point of the check mark is that it indicates you have read the message even if you haven't (yet) given a reply. It doesn't tell why you didn't answer: if you just didn't get around to answering yet or if you don't want to answer on purpose. (But of course it offers the suggestion of the latter. Hence "left me on read" being a thing where "no reply" is seen as an act of communication itself.) But there is no situation in which it indicates approval. So if anything, "double green check without any reply" could be interpreted as declining a contract offer. But even this would be a stretch, I think.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  Context is everything. A green check mark is clearly an affirmative. If it is in your messenger it can mean "read, but no reply". If you send a check mark as an answer to a bid, I can hardly imagine anyone interpreting this as anything else as an acceptance. The more interesting case would be an X mark. While this is often interpreted as the opposite of a check mark there are contexts where it is affirmative. Best known example is probably election ballot papers. Not so well know nowadays is that the blind and illiterate used the X to sign contracts.
  - xg15 3y ago
    Yeah, but a green checkmark emoji is something different than the "message was read" icon the GP was talking about. I don't think any average user would confuse the two and neither would a judge.
    - weinzierl 3y ago
      You wouldn't send the "message was read" icon in a message, would you? And even if, the sender would probably just read it as two green check marks. That's what I meant with context is everything.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

> What's next? If you text :eggplant: to your wife, then you might get her pregnant!

dazc 3y ago

You can argue the 'green check icon' was not entered by you and a screenshot of such could have been created by any competent 12 year old. Accepting you did enter the icon, and the screenshot is accurate, then saying you didn't mean it to be interpreted as an agreement is another matter. I think this is where your digital signature wins.

nivertech 3y ago
Any written communication (such as email or SMS) can be considered as evidence in court (NOTE: just evidence, not a signature). That's why M&A departments don't do deals or negotiations over email. But that's long form. Emojis on the other side are very short. It's a new medium and doesn't have a stable interpretation yet. Also, any contract negotiation is a process (sometimes even a Saga ;) Plucking a single message out of a sequence of messages is wrong.

dsego 3y ago

You could argue that a thumbs-up emoji is equivalent to a handshake and a verbal agreement.

atq2119 3y ago
That is precisely the argument, and it is a perfectly reasonable one, especially in the right context.
nivertech 3y ago
Verbal agreement usually done in person. Maybe it can be done over the phone using voice communication. But using a simple emoji is stretching it out, as there is no context: you can't see the counterpart's face, you don't hear their intonations in their voice. You don't even have UPPER CASE or punctuation marks.
- fsh 3y ago
  From the article: Chris Achter, the owner of a farming company in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, had sent a thumbs-up emoji in response to a photograph of a flax-buying contract from a grains buyer in 2021. Sending a written contract should provide more than enough context to the counterpart.
  - nivertech 3y ago
    I'm talking about the context in the reply (outgoing message), not the context in the incomming message. The most obvious explanation is the confirmation of the recieval. > Mr Achter said he used it only to indicate that he had received the contract, but not to indicate his agreement. I also frequently have fat finger emojis in Slack, Discord or WhatsApp, now it's legally bounded? I live in the country with the Common Law system, but even worse than in Canada, as the judges here don't care about the written contracts. The former President of the Supreme Court even said something like "I don't care what's written in the contract", and basically had arbitrary rulings based on his own understandings. Because of that most tech companies here have an arbitration clause in contracts that all disputes will be resolved outside of our local jurisdiction. Usually in Delaware.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      > I also frequently have fat finger emojis in Slack, Discord or WhatsApp, now it's legally bounded? I would bet my business prospects that no court would conclude that a thumbs-up followed less than a minute later by a “disregard previous typo” message as binding acceptance. This is not some trick “no backsies” situation, but rather a case where a pattern of short acceptance messages was continued, just in picture form. Other than the defendant objecting after the fact, I think most reasonable people would look at the pattern of communication and reach the same conclusion the court did.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

A contract is a meeting of minds, with agreement between the parties. Even a verbal agreement is legally binding. Of course, it is hard to prove such an agreement exists to others, so we create a record of the agreement. If there is evidence that such agreement exists, then the contract is enforceable, and that is all that has happened here. Using a thumbs up emoji to indicate agreement may look a bit silly, but the intent is apparently clear.

jowea 3y ago
Another article on this trial also pointed out that in the past making a variety of scribbles were considered agreement since the majority of the population was illiterate.
- User23 3y ago
  You can draw a cartoon penis or anything else on docusign and it’s still binding.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    Can you cite a source for that?
constantly 3y ago
Broadly correct with the caveat that there are some restrictions on verbal contracts. For example, I cannot sell my house verbally. Or my car (unless it’s a really bad car).
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  >Or my car (unless it’s a really bad car). Is there a legal standard for this? I like to imagine a legal dispute in front of a judge if the vehicle in question is or is not a total POS that can be sold on the spot.
  - 3y ago

krisoft 3y ago

> Why people are wasting many millions of dollars to implement cryptographically-secure electronic signature systems, if a simple thumbs-up emoji is enogh? ;) People insist on formalities (of all kind) precisely in order to avoid these kind of lawsuits. Paying all those lawyers is not cheap. > What's next? It is not like this was some hapless chap who got suckered into a deal. They had a business relationship going on for years and they have agreed on similar deals with not much more than a thumbs up emoji. > Common Law system is flawed. What aspect of this story makes you think that?

nivertech 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36644084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36644084
ncphil 3y ago
Although I'm not a fan of the common law system, it isn't the problem here. The problem is a culture that so elevates informality that there are no guardrails left to ensure careful, thoughtful, deliberation even in business deals involving tens of thousands of dollars. Next up, declaration of war by tweet.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago

We should go back to common law. Your word is your word, whether that's digital or not. If you sends a positive confirmation in the form of a emoiji and then never follow up that's on you. He had for sure a week or more to clarify he could or couldn't fulfill the order without repurcussions.

xg15 3y ago

I think if anything, a double green check would mean the opposite: The point of the check mark is that it indicates you have read the message even if you haven't (yet) given a reply. It doesn't tell why you didn't answer: if you just didn't get around to answering yet or if you don't want to answer on purpose. (But of course it offers the suggestion of the latter. Hence "left me on read" being a thing where "no reply" is seen as an act of communication itself.) But there is no situation in which it indicates approval. So if anything, "double green check without any reply" could be interpreted as declining a contract offer. But even this would be a stretch, I think.

weinzierl 3y ago
Context is everything. A green check mark is clearly an affirmative. If it is in your messenger it can mean "read, but no reply". If you send a check mark as an answer to a bid, I can hardly imagine anyone interpreting this as anything else as an acceptance. The more interesting case would be an X mark. While this is often interpreted as the opposite of a check mark there are contexts where it is affirmative. Best known example is probably election ballot papers. Not so well know nowadays is that the blind and illiterate used the X to sign contracts.
- xg15 3y ago
  Yeah, but a green checkmark emoji is something different than the "message was read" icon the GP was talking about. I don't think any average user would confuse the two and neither would a judge.
  - weinzierl 3y ago
    You wouldn't send the "message was read" icon in a message, would you? And even if, the sender would probably just read it as two green check marks. That's what I meant with context is everything.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]