• SenorBolsa@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yup makes sense to me, very much in line with my laymans understanding of contract law. It’s very driven by social context as it is. I wonder how that differs somewhere like Japan where official seals are expected even for minor documents.

    Sounds like everyone involved was making moves to commit to it initially which was probably the biggest factor here.

    • Thugosaurus_Rex@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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