Your title reads like immigrants are more susceptible to silicosis than non-immigrants.

Man, Lemmy is savage with its downvotes.

And also stop goes for hikes in the middle of a heat wave.

This is some weird-ass propaganda article. The article frames this whole thing as a wronged war hero seeking justice, then just slips in a little tidbit that a court found he literally comitted war crimes, before going back to listing his medals.

Quote:

A judge dismissed the defamation claims, finding the articles were substantially true. The judge also found Roberts-Smith was responsible for four of the six unlawful deaths he had been accused of.

Mate, in basically all common law jurisdictions an agreement can be a legally binding contract regardless of its form. While there are some narrow exceptions (largely dealing with specific instruments or real property), by and large that rule holds. Even an oral contract is legally enforceable.

As a counterpoint, it would be quite unfair for the law to allow people to breach their agreements purely based on the medium used to enter into an otherwise valid contract.

E.g., what if the non-breaching person had invested considerable time or money complying with their end of the bargain in reliance on the promise? What if, as I understand the case was here, the parties completed multiple agreements over text and came to rely on that medium as the convention?

In any event, the analysis leaves a lot of room for a judge to consider the factual background and reach a fair outcome.

While the novelty of accepting a contract through emojis is pretty goofy, judges applying contract law to hold people to commercial promises like this is otherwise a pretty run-of-the-mill thing, even when the promise was over text.