Can we use emojis to sign contracts? - Spoiler: 👍

[YellowJersey]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

No it isn't similar. American contract law would never allow a thumbs up emoji to be used as a way to eSign a contract. The biggest point in American contract law is that when esigning the intentions have to be clear otherwise it doesn't count and for good reason. Obviously there are other ways to do eSign like a checkbox for I agree but even with that the point is very clear that if you check the box you agree. Even if they had said that thumbs up emoji means I agree then you could possibly use it to eSign but that would take the ambiguity out of it as it was earlier determined the meaning. Would I feel bad for the person who bought the flax? Yeah but that shouldn't change how contract law works and they should have done due diligence tbh. This is in a hypothetical of this taking place in the US. 

Oh, my friend, you have much to learn.

[Brooksie359]

6 minutes ago, YellowJersey said:

Oh, my friend, you have much to learn.

Ah yes just make a statement that means nothing instead of engaging with the argument. If you have anything that shows how what I said is incorrect then go ahead but otherwise anything else you say is basically meaningless. 

[HenrySalayne]

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

No it isn't similar. American contract law would never allow a thumbs up emoji to be used as a way to eSign a contract. The biggest point in American contract law is that when esigning the intentions have to be clear otherwise it doesn't count and for good reason.

"not allow" might be a little harsh. There are plenty of poorly made contracts which are perfectly fine as long as both parties agree, but which would be torn apart in court.

 

I just opened a new bank account at a major bank and I had to agree to 'fees and conditions mentioned in paragraph 3'. There was no document with a paragraph 3. Only after I completed the sign-up process, I was presented with the document containing this paragraph. EU law is pretty clear in this regard and effectively I have not agreed to the fees and conditions. The bank cannot ask me to agree to something they only disclose later in the process.

This bank has several thousand people opening a new bank account every day and their online sign-up process would be picked apart in court. Obviously that didn't happen so far.

 

For the very same reason EULAs, which are only presented after you bought a piece of software, have no validity.

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

"not allow" might be a little harsh. There are plenty of poorly made contracts which are perfectly fine as long as both parties agree, but which would be torn apart in court.

 

I just opened a new bank account at a major bank and I had to agree to 'fees and conditions mentioned in paragraph 3'. There was no document with a paragraph 3. Only after I completed the sign-up process, I was presented with the document containing this paragraph. EU law is pretty clear in this regard and effectively I have not agreed to the fees and conditions. The bank cannot ask me to agree to something they only disclose later in the process.

This bank has several thousand people opening a new bank account every day and their online sign-up process would be picked apart in court. Obviously that didn't happen so far.

 

For the very same reason EULAs, which are only presented after you bought a piece of software, have no validity.

Sure you could have people act in good faith and follow what is said in the contract but at that point you wouldn't need to sign the contract became it's basically worthless as they are operating on trust at that point. 

[Isuck Assimov]

can't imagine there wasn't at least a little bit of bad faith on the side of the cooperative.

People are gonna claim "they looked at me in a confirming manner" next to sue for damages after "breach of contract" lol

[suicidalfranco]

Ladies and gentlemen: The Peter Pan generation