this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
198 points (92.7% liked)
Technology
59287 readers
4096 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I had a feeling that there is more to this than the article states, so I followed the link to the decision. Basically, on three occasions the broker had sent a pic of a signed contract, asked the farmers to “confirm” or something similar, then received only a text message and, eventually, the flax.
The judge basically just said they had set a pattern, and that “👍” was equivalent to “looks good,” “ok,” and “yup,” which had been used before. It was a summary judgment, meaning that the farmer’s lawyers were not disputing the broker’s story about the three earlier contracts. Then, per the judge, the standard in Saskatchewan is “what would a reasonable person in the broker’s position believe.” Finally, I’m no expert on Saskatchewan civil litigation, but the standard was probably “preponderance of the evidence” or “balance of the probabilities,” meaning it’s just more likely than not that the broker was in the right.
So, you’ve got a written offer and a written acceptance, at least in a form that has resulted in flax deliveries on several previous occasions. Farmer was just annoyed that prices had gone up and he wouldn’t be able to take advantage.