la corte canadese del Saskatchewan, 8 giugno 2023, n° 2023 SKKB 116, SOUTH WEST TERMINAL LTD. v. ACHTER LAND & CATTLE LTD, affronta il caso in oggetto (v. qui la pagina ministeriale ove il link e qui il linbk diretto al testio) .
Secondo la corte, in base alle circostranze il pollice su , di fronte alla richeristga del venditore di dare conferma della propostra (“Please confirm flax contract”) , non signicava solo attestazione di suo ricevimento ma anche sua accettazione.
<< I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Chris okayed or approved the contract just like he had done before except this time he used a 👍 emoji. In my opinion, when considering all of the circumstances that meant approval of the flax contract and not simply that he had received the contract and was going to think about it. In my view a reasonable bystander knowing all of the background would come to the objective understanding that the parties had reached consensus ad item – a meeting of the minds – just like they had done on numerous other occasions>>.
< Counsel for Achter remonstrates that allowing a simple 👍 emoji to signify identity and acceptance would open up the flood gates to allow all sorts of cases coming forward asking for interpretations as to what various different emojis mean – for example what does a 👊 emoji mean or a 🤝 emoji mean, etc. Counsel argues the courts will be inundated with all kinds of cases if this court finds that the 👍 emoji can take the place of a signature. This appears to be a sort of public policy argument. I agree that this case is novel (at least in Saskatchewan) but nevertheless this Court cannot (nor should it) attempt to stem the tide of technology and common usage – this appears to be the new reality in Canadian society and courts will have to be ready to meet the new challenges that may arise from the use of emojis and the like.
 I acknowledge the defendant relies on Can-Am Farms Ltd. v Parkland Pulse Grain Co. Ltd., 2004 SKQB 58. However that case is distinguishable on the facts. In that case the grain buyer was waiting to hear back from a seller – nothing had been agreed upon and there was no consensus as idem. There was no contract signed. Justice Krueger held it was incumbent on the grain buyer to inquire with the seller subsequent to the parties’ telephone call to see what was going on. Here the 👍 emoji was Chris’s response to an offered flax contract. This is substantially different in my opinion.
 For the above reasons I find that the parties entered into a binding legal contract under the unique circumstances of this case. Therefore this issue does not require a trial>>.
Bisogna infatti distinguere bene le due questioni: – se un “pollice su” possa costituire accettazione nei contratti non formali: e la risposta è positiva (certo dipendendo dal contesto); – quale fosse l’oggetto della volontà adesiva espressa tramite pollice su : conferma di ricevimento della proposta oppure accettazione della stessa.
(notizia dal Guardian ove anche il link)