L’ emoji thumbs up (pollice su) 👍 vale accettazione della proposta

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.

<<[36] 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>>.

e poi:

<[40] 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.
[41] 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.
[42] 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)

Conclusione on-line del contratto e clausola di arbitrato

Le piattaforme quasi sempre , quando convenute, eccepiscono la clausola di arbitrato stipulata on line tramite i terms of service TOS, in cui è inserita.

In questo caso il distretto nord della California, S. Josè division, 16 dicembre 2022, Case No. 22-cv-02638-BLF, Houtchens e altri c. Google, affronta il tema del se sia stata o no validamente conclusa la clausola di arbitrato col metodo c.d. clickwrap agreement per l’apertura di un account Fitbit (di proprietà di Google).

Si vedano in sentenza le quattro schermate a seconda del dispositivo (pc, cell. etc): in breve, si deve cliccare per i TOS su un quadratino che ad essi rinvia tramite link, e in essi pure alla  clausola di arbitrato.

Per la corte, l’accordo si è validamente formato:

<<The Court finds that the hyperlinks to Fitbit’s Terms of Service in each of the above screens provided Plaintiffs “reasonably conspicuous notice” of the terms. See Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2022). In the first three screens, the hyperlinks to Fitbit’s Terms of Service are presented in blue text in a sentence that otherwise uses gray text; they are next to the box a user must select to accept the terms; and the screens on which they appear are uncluttered. Court’s have routinely found that such a presentation supplies reasonably conspicuous notice of hyperlinked terms. See, e.g., Adibzadeh, 2021 WL 4440313, at *6 (reasonably conspicuous notice provided “where users must agree to the website’s terms and conditions before they can proceed, and the terms and conditions are offset in a blue text, hyperlinked text”). In the final screen, the hyperlinks are again presented next to the box that a user must select to accept the terms and the screen on which they appear is uncluttered; but instead of using blue font to distinguish the hyperlinks from the surrounding text, the page uses boldunderlined font. The Court finds that this page, too, provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which a consumer will be bound. Cf. Nguyen, 763 F.3d at 1177 (“The conspicuousness and placement of the ‘Terms of Use’ hyperlink, other notices given to users of the terms of use, and the website’s general design all contribute to whether a reasonably prudent user would have inquiry notice of a browsewrap agreement.”)>>