Thumbs-Up Emoji 👍: Its validity under Indian Laws and Canadian Law: An Analysis
Thumbs-Up Emoji 👍: Its validity under Indian Laws and Canadian Law: An Analysis
Parkova/Shutterstock.com
Introduction
In the modern digital world, communication has moved far beyond plain text. With the rapid
growth of smartphones and social media platforms such as Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook,
Snapchat, and others, digital communication has become an essential part of daily life. For our
daily needs, we increasingly rely on digital modes to share information, ideas, and responses.
The style of communication has changed distinctly. In addition to using sentences to express
emotions, ideas, reactions, and intentions, people now commonly use emojis, stickers, and GIFs.
These visual symbols have become an integral part of digital communication.
Today, emojis are not limited to casual chats. They are widely used in emails, marketing,
education, and even professional and legal discussions. Their growing influence reflects how
digital communication is evolving towards simplicity, speed, and emotional clarity. Thus, emojis
have become a powerful communication tool.
Emojis: Meaning
However, emojis can have different meanings in different contexts. Generally, a thumbs-up
emoji conveys meanings such as “clearly,” “I agree,” “okay,” or “I understand.” But what
happens when an emoji is treated as equivalent to an electronic signature in a contract?
In this context, we can refer to the South West Terminal case, where the Saskatchewan Court in
Canada held that an emoji can be considered as acceptance, thereby forming a legally binding
contract. In this paper, we will briefly discuss the case of South West Terminal Ltd. v. Achter Land
& Cattle Ltd. and then shift focus to the Indian legal framework to analyze whether emojis can
have contractual validity under Indian contract law. We will also examine relevant foreign
judicial interpretations for a comparative understanding.
In the Indian context, it is important to understand the concept of contracts, their types, and the
process of forming a valid contract. This also includes an understanding of electronic contracts
(e-contracts) and smart contracts, as well as the role of technology and WhatsApp messages in
contractual communication and acceptance.
South West Terminal Ltd. v. Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. – Landmark Decision on Emoji Usage
The case of South West Terminal Ltd. v. Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. is a landmark decision
concerning the legal validity of emojis in contract formation. This was the first case in Canadian
court history where a thumbs-up emoji was accepted as valid consent to a contract under the
Canadian Sale of Goods Act, 1979.
Background of the Case
South West Terminal Ltd. entered into a flax purchase agreement with Achter Land & Cattle Ltd.
through text message communication. In March 2021, SWT sent a photograph of a signed flax
delivery contract to Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. and asked for confirmation.
In response, Achter replied with a thumbs-up emoji👍. Kent, who was the representative of SWT
and had drafted the terms and conditions of the contract, understood this emoji as confirmation
that the contract terms were accepted and that the agreement was ready to be executed.
The agreement was for the purchase of 87 metric tonnes of flax at a fixed price, which was
communicated through a WhatsApp message. Upon receiving the message, Achter agreed to the
terms and conditions and replied with a thumbs-up emoji 👍, indicating acceptance. Achter
agreed that he would perform the contract and deliver the goods within the agreed period, from
November 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021.
However, Achter failed to deliver the product within the stipulated time. As a result, South West
Terminal Ltd. (SWT) claimed damages amounting to $82,200.21, along with interest and costs.
On the other hand, Achter argued that the thumbs-up emoji 👍 was merely a response
acknowledging receipt of the message and did not amount to acceptance of the contract.
Issues Before the Court
1. Whether a valid contract was formed
2. Whether the use of a thumbs-up emoji 👍 is sufficient to convey acceptance
3. Whether a contract can be validly formed through digital communication using an emoji
Judgment
This was the first judgment in Canadian court history to directly address the contractual validity
of emojis. The court ruled in favour of South West Terminal Ltd. and held that the thumbs-up
emoji 👍 amounted to valid acceptance of the contract.
The judge examined the prior course of dealings between the parties and noted that Achter had
entered several contracts with SWT in the past using informal confirmations such as “OK,”
“Yup,” and “Looks good.” Based on this established pattern of conduct, the court concluded that
the emoji 👍 clearly indicated acceptance of the contractual terms.
It was held that there was consensus ad idem, looking into their previous contracts in the same
manner. The King’s Bench for Saskatchewan reinforced that modern digital symbols, including
emojis, can create legally binding contracts when used in context.
What Is Meant by a Contract?
Contracts are the backbone of commercial transactions and everyday dealings in society. A
contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties that creates mutual
obligations.
Under Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract is an agreement enforceable by
law. For an agreement to become a valid contract in India, it must satisfy certain conditions.
Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration
A contract must involve offer, acceptance, lawful consideration, competent parties, free consent,
and a lawful object. If any of these elements are not present, the contract is declared void.
Information Technology Act, 2000
The IT Act, 2000 provides legal recognition to electronic records and electronic signatures.
Agreements entered electronically are valid.
In Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd., the Supreme Court held that a
contract can be validly formed through emails and electronic communication once the offer and
acceptance are clear and unconditional.
Admissibility of Electronic Messages in India
Under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023),
electronic records are admissible subject to prescribed conditions.
In Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. KS Infraspace LLP, the Supreme Court observed that
electronic communications are admissible as evidence.
Can an Emoji Be Considered an Electronic Signature?
In India, there is no direct judgment holding that emojis constitute electronic signatures for
contract formation.
In Director General, Railway Protection Force v. Navendra Chauhan, a thumbs-up emoji 👍sent in
an official WhatsApp group was interpreted as an acknowledgment (OK / seen). The Madras
High Court held that the dismissal was unjustified and decided the case in favour of Chauhan,
stating that the emoji 👍 did not amount to misconduct.
Position in India: Emojis Alone ≠ Contract
In India, emojis alone ≠ contract. Emojis may act as evidence of consent, but they do not
independently create a legally binding contract. Intention, context, and surrounding
circumstances remain decisive.
Conclusion
A contract is valid whether it is express or implied. When a party enters a contract, acceptance
may be communicated by replying, nodding the head, showing a thumbs-up👍, or through any
other digital or electronic communication such as emojis, which can legally express acceptance
for creating a contract.
The thumbs-up emoji 👍 is considered admissible and has been treated as valid acceptance in
Canada, but it is not applicable in all contexts. Emojis can carry legal weight in India,
especially in digital communication and electronic signatures.
Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, messages and emails are considered legally valid for
contract formation. Emojis may also be acceptable as part of contractual communication, but
clear intention and the overall conversation are crucial, not just the emoji alone, to
determine whether there is consensus ad idem required for a valid contract.
Thus, emojis serve as evidence of the contract, rather than constituting the contract by
themselves.
