[post-it]

> The reductio ad absurdum is the recent Canadian legal case where the court determined that a "thumbs up" emoji signals a binding contract.

Why do you believe so?

If "Looks good," "Ok," and "Yup" signal a binding contract, as detailed in the case you're talking about, I contend it's perfectly reasonable for :thumbsup: to also signal a binding contract between the same parties. [0]

Consider:

> 5. For instance, on July 14, 2020, after discussing and agreeing on a contract with Chris Achter, I prepared a contract for the sale of 185 metric tons [sic] of durum wheat from Achter Ltd. to SWT for a price of $312.31 per ton [sic]. I signed the contract and then took a photo of it using my cell phone and sent it to Chris at 306-264-7664. I messaged: “Please confirm terms of durum contract.” Chris texted me back: “Looks good”. At the time, I understood this to be that Chris was agreeing to the contract and this was his way of signally [sic] that agreement. Achter Ltd. delivered on this contract without issue. A copy of the contract and text message is attached as Exhibit “B”.

> 6. On September 11, 2020, after discussing and agreeing on a contract with Chris Acter [sic], I prepared a contract for the sale of 131 metric tons [sic] of durum wheat from Achter Ltd. to SWT for a price of $284.77 per ton [sic]. I signed the contract and then took a photo of it using my cell phone and sent it to Chris at 306-264-7664. I messaged: “Please confirm terms of durum contract”. Chris texted me back: “Ok”. At that time, I understood this to be that Chris was agreeing to the contract and this was his way of signally [sic] that agreement. Achter Ltd. delivered on this contract without issue. A copy of the contract and the text messages is attached as Exhibit “C”.

> 7. On October 21, 2020, after discussing and agreeing on a contract with Chris Acter [sic], I prepared a contract for the sale of 395 metric tons [sic] of durum wheat from Achter Ltd. to SWT for a price of $308.65 per ton [sic]. I signed the contract and then took a photo of it using my cell phone and sent it to Chris at 306-264-7664. I messaged: “Please confirm terms of durum contract”. Chris texted me back: “Yup”. At that time, I understood this to be that Chris was agreeing to the contract and this was his way of signally [sic] that agreement. Achter Ltd. delivered on this contract without issue. A copy of the contract and the text messages is attached as Exhibit “D”.

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

[lapcat]

> If "Looks good," "Ok," and "Yup" signal a binding contract, as detailed in the case you're talking about, I contend it's perfectly reasonable for :thumbsup: to also signal a binding contract between the same parties.

I wasn't criticizing the decision in the case. I'm neither a lawyer nor a Canadian and have no opinion about that.

I was criticizing the entire situation, the absurdity of emoji becoming a matter of legal controversy.

[kortex]

Why is the sequence of bytes representing 是的 (Shì de - yes), valid human symbolic language, but the sequence of bytes representing thumbs up "absurd" language? Nowhere in the Rules of Human Language, Volume 12023, does it say "language must comprise a fixed set of symbols that is locked in time".

[lapcat]

This is not about gradual language evolution in general. It's about the specific stupidity of emoji, as I already explained:

> Emoji have become trite, lazy, and practically meaningless, especially a few such as "face with tears of joy", "rolling on the floor laughing face", and "fire". Emoticons used to be a supplement for words, indicating the tone of the words, but now emoji are a replacement for words, the ultimate illiteracy.

Also, even worse, emoji are "evolving" so damn fast and continually that they appear as broken boxes if you're not running the very latest browser or operating system version.