It would be nice. From your specific wish I take it you probably already know, but for general discussion it looks like they’ve just filed the Notice of Appeal with the trial Court, which is entirely procedural and required before an appeal can be brought to the Circuit Court. We’ll likely have to wait for the briefing before we get the substantive arguments. Reporting on appeals really does give the impression that it’s like a second trial though.

Beehaw.org was at war with Lemmy.world. Beehaw.org had always been at war with Lemmy.world.

I’d be interested as well, and it’s actually a bit of an open question in the US even whether an emoji can satisfy Statute of Frauds requirements. Not every contract needs to be in writing, but the Statute of Frauds requires that certain types of contracts do need to have a written contract and agreement–sale of goods valued more than $500.00 is one of those categories. Canada has its own various Statute of Frauds laws, but that’s way outside of my jurisdiction, and I can’t tell from the reporting whether any applied or were considered in this case.

Emojis are the focus of more and more litigation these days, and it’s really interesting watching how these cases play out. Here’s a good source (US focused) from Lexis Nexis discussing emojis in contract litigation:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical-guidance-journal/b/pa/posts/contracting-by-emoji

I’m a lawyer (though admittedly not in Canada!)–this doesn’t sound as absurd as the headlines read, and I would hesitate to to form opinions on any case on the basis of headlines or blurbs. That said, looking at other sources it seems there’s more here than the posted article conveys:

The judge noted that Mr. Achter and Mr. Mickleborough had had a longstanding business relationship and that, in the past, when Mr. Mr. Mickleborough had texted Mr. Achter contracts for durum wheat, Mr. Achter had responded by succinctly texting “looks good,” “ok” or “yup.”

Both parties clearly understood these terse responses were meant to be confirmation of the contract and “not a mere acknowledgment of the receipt of the contract” by Mr. Achter, wrote Justice T.J. Keene of the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan. And each time, Mr. Achter had delivered the grain as contracted and had been paid.

Looks like they had a long standing business relationship where this sort of communication had been the common understood form of acceptance in the past. It’s also important to note the guy only tried backing out of the deal after a price fluctuation meant he’d be taking a relative loss.

I’d want to see all of the facts and arguments, but this seems reasonable from what we can see reported.