[drc500free]

> So in short, what we have is an uncontested pattern of entering into what both parties knew and accepted to be valid and binding deferred delivery purchase contracts on a number of occasions. It is important to note that each time Kent added to the offered contract “Please confirm terms of durum contract” and Chris did so by succinctly texting “looks good”, “ok” or “yup”. The parties clearly understood these curt words were meant to be confirmation of the contract and not a mere acknowledgement of the receipt of the contract by Chris. There can be no other logical or creditable explanation because the proof is in the pudding. Chris delivered the grain as contracted and got paid. There was no evidence he was merely confirming the receipt of a contract and was left just wondering about a contract.

....

> I find this to be very similar to the durum contracts referred to above including Kent’s use of the phrase “Please confirm flax contract” (the only difference being the use of the word flax instead of the word durum) and this time instead of words like “ok”, “yup” or “looks good” being texted by Chris – a commonly used <thumbs up> emoji was texted by Chris.

This is the key finding in the Judgement[1] for how the judge resolved the ambiguity, including important context missing from TFA. The parties had done business together for ten years, and had executed contracts via text message on three previous occasions. In all three previous cases, the seller responded with something terse and then delivered on the contract.

[1] https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skkb/doc/2023/2023skkb116/2023s...