![](https://imageresizer.static9.net.au/ndtgRHrm7xu36oAmUuQ9Hl_52Xs=/750x0/https%3A%2F%2F1.800.gay%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fvms-network-images-prod.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com%2F2023%2F07%2F523128%2Fthumb.png)
Australians should beware of using emojis in response to being sent official documents after a Canadian judge ruled the "thumbs-up" emoji is just as valid as a signature, an employment law expert has warned.
In delivering his ruling on the use of emoji, the judge said courts needed to adapt to the "new reality" of how people communicate as he ordered a farmer in Canada to pay more than $61,400 for an unfulfilled contract to buy grain.
According to Saskatchewan court documents, a grain purchasing company sent a text message to grain suppliers wanting to buy flax for $CAD17 ($18) per bushel for delivery.
After phone calls with farmers Bob and Chris Achter, they drafted a contract for Chris Achter to sell 86 metric tonnes of flax for $18 a bushel.
A representative from the buying company signed the contract in ink and then sent a photo of the contract via mobile phone to Chris Achter along with the message: "Please confirm flax contract."
Achter responded with a "thumbs-up" emoji, according to court documents.
The farmer argued he was simply agreeing he would review the contract at a later date.
But the judge ruled the court "readily acknowledges that a 'thumbs up' emoji is a non-traditional means to 'sign' a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a 'signature'."
The buying representative said in court documents he had done at least four other contracts with Achter via text.
He said the only difference this time was Achter responded with a "thumbs-up" emoji instead of "ok", "yup" or "looks good".
Slater and Gordon's head of industrial and employment law Andrew Rich said that although the decision was made overseas it could have some persuasive value in Australian courts.
"An Australian court can consider this legal decision when making a ruling, it can be thought of as a suggestion or advice from another court," he said.
"While it isn't a binding precedent, the law is increasingly modernising to accurately reflect the realities of our day-to-day lives."
According to Dictionary.com, a "thumbs up" is used to "express assent, approval or encouragement in digital communications, especially in Western cultures".
Rich said many common scenarios could be viewed as similar to the grain buying case.
"Your boss could send you a new contract, and you send a thumbs up back intending to confirm you received it," Rich said, but "when you read it you disagree with the new terms".
If that matter goes to court, there's nothing stopping a judge citing this decision, he said.
The defence in the Canadian case was concerned that accepting the "thumbs up" emoji indicated agreement with the terms of the contract would open the acceptance of other emojis including the "fist bump" and the "handshake", however the judge dismissed these concerns.
Why one of these uniforms sent a chill down people's necks
Rich said the decision suggested that other courts may also find that these other emojis do not have the same commonly accepted meaning of expressing agreement as the thumbs up emoji.
"This ruling means that by just sending a simple thumbs up, people may be locking themselves into a contract without necessarily intending to," he said.
"I don't think people need to be afraid, but they just need to be aware of the new realities and the challenges that the use of emojis and other new forms of communication create and just be careful."
Sign up here to receive our daily newsletters and breaking news alerts, sent straight to your inbox.