This kind of ruling would make sense for a $20 bicycle, but I’d expect the bar for mutual agreement to be higher for a shipment of $60,000 worth of flax.
I had a feeling that there is more to this than the article states, so I followed the link to the decision. Basically, on three occasions the broker had sent a pic of a signed contract, asked the farmers to “confirm” or something similar, then received only a text message and, eventually, the flax.
The judge basically just said they had set a pattern, and that “👍” was equivalent to “looks good,” “ok,” and “yup,” which had been used before. It was a summary judgment, meaning that the farmer’s lawyers were not disputing the broker’s story about the three earlier contracts. Then, per the judge, the standard in Saskatchewan is “what would a reasonable person in the broker’s position believe.” Finally, I’m no expert on Saskatchewan civil litigation, but the standard was probably “preponderance of the evidence” or “balance of the probabilities,” meaning it’s just more likely than not that the broker was in the right.
So, you’ve got a written offer and a written acceptance, at least in a form that has resulted in flax deliveries on several previous occasions. Farmer was just annoyed that prices had gone up and he wouldn’t be able to take advantage.
This kind of ruling would make sense for a $20 bicycle, but I’d expect the bar for mutual agreement to be higher for a shipment of $60,000 worth of flax.
I had a feeling that there is more to this than the article states, so I followed the link to the decision. Basically, on three occasions the broker had sent a pic of a signed contract, asked the farmers to “confirm” or something similar, then received only a text message and, eventually, the flax.
The judge basically just said they had set a pattern, and that “👍” was equivalent to “looks good,” “ok,” and “yup,” which had been used before. It was a summary judgment, meaning that the farmer’s lawyers were not disputing the broker’s story about the three earlier contracts. Then, per the judge, the standard in Saskatchewan is “what would a reasonable person in the broker’s position believe.” Finally, I’m no expert on Saskatchewan civil litigation, but the standard was probably “preponderance of the evidence” or “balance of the probabilities,” meaning it’s just more likely than not that the broker was in the right.
So, you’ve got a written offer and a written acceptance, at least in a form that has resulted in flax deliveries on several previous occasions. Farmer was just annoyed that prices had gone up and he wouldn’t be able to take advantage.