I agree with Steve – I can well see that the question of whether an emoji meets a formal requirement is a question of legal rules (because, to state the obvious, those rules dictate the form in which a contract is made). A legal system could obviously hold that an emoji is not a ‘signature’, although given the history of using marks and figures (such as ‘X’) because of illiteracy, I would find that surprising.

 

However, the question of whether an emoji (which is clearly a form of communication) amounts to acceptance of a contract not covered by formality rules is simply a question of interpretation of the communication, which turns on the facts of the case.

 

 

 

Is that what it held?   Judge Ruchelsman indicated that the statute of frauds point was unclear, but didn’t rule on it (it didn’t arise on the facts).  As to whether the emoji indicated agreement, he said that this was a factual question, and rejected plaintiff’s argument for summary judgment because defendant’s case was clearly arguable:  “there are surely questions of fact whether the defendant intended to be bound by that emoji where only nine minutes beforehand the defendant categorically asserted he would not sign any document. There are surely questions of fact whether he ever intended to be bound by a written text message in the form of a thumbs up emoji. Therefore, this case cannot be summarily decided on this basis”.   So as to agreement, Judge Ruchelsman seems to be applying the same test as Keene J – indeed, Keene J also had to consider precisely what the emoji meant.  Clearly an emoji must be read in its context, just as words must.

 

(The judgment is at https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2022/2022-ny-slip-op-32931-u.html)

 

 

 

This e-mail originates from outside One Essex Court. Please exercise caution