Skip to main content

The BUSKLAW September Newsletter: On Forming Contracts And Using Emojis In Contract Negotiations


Forming (or not forming) a contract in the digital age can be a tricky business. Millennials in particular are more accustomed to negotiating deals not by exchanging offers, counteroffers, and acceptances as email attachments requiring signatures, but by emails, text messages, and social media exchanges. And each of these channels can easily include emojisthose funny little pictographs that are fast becoming ubiquitous in our digital lives. 

But this casual approach can lead to confusion in contract negotiations. Before we discuss how, let's review basic legal principles of forming a contract under Michigan (and many other jurisdictions') law: 
  1. Verbal Contracts. Verbal contracts are generally enforceable if their subject matter isn't real estate, or goods priced at $1,000 or more. (Note to my IT clients: software programs are not "goods," so beware informal statements that can be construed to form a license agreement.) But there are problems of proving the terms of an oral contract because you have to line up witnesses to testify about what the parties agreed. It the stakes are high enough, however, this process can certainly play out in the courts.
  2. Consideration. A valid contract generally requires "consideration." In its simplest form, consideration is value exchanged between the contracting parties. But consideration may also be a promise not to do something that you have a right to do, such as file a lawsuit.  
  3. "Formal" Contract - A Misnomer. There is no such animal as a "formal" contract. An enforceable contract can be made written out on a scrap of paper, a business card, or a paper napkin; a contract may even be evidenced by writing on the back of a paper check. And that writing doesn't have to contain all of the contractual terms. Courts will determine what provisions are essential to a contract sought to be enforced and whether an omitted provision can be supplied by implication. 
  4. "Formal" Signature - Another Misnomer. A written contract must be signed by the person contractually obligated. But a formal signature is not required. The following are valid signatures to a written contract: a typed, printed, or stamped signature; initials; or an electronic symbol or process attached to or logically associated with a record and adopted by a person with intent to sign the record. See my post here about how to avoid forming a contract by your email. 
  5. Emails and Text Messages - Satisfy the Written Contract Requirement. If a contract must be in writing, court cases hold that emails and text messages satisfy that requirement. You don't need a contract nicely typed on a piece of paper or a jargon-filled document like the one discussed here
  6. A Party's Subjective Intent Doesn't Matter. A contract can be formed regardless of whether one party to the deal didn't intend to form a contract. All that matters is that reasonable third parties with knowledge of the facts believe that a contract was made.
  7. You Don't Have to Read a Contract to be Bound by It. You can't rely on the "I didn't read it" defense to contract enforceability. If you "signed" the contract or otherwise manifested your assent to its terms, you are generally obligated even if you didn't read some-or all-of the contract. This is especially true for website terms of use. (Your customer-facing website does have terms of use, right?)
  8. A "Letter of Intent" Can Be Binding. As discussed in a previous post here, a letter of intent can be a binding contract, unless appropriate language is used that clearly negates that result. In my experience, business folks are too quick to sign letters of intent without legal review that includes a good understanding of the parties' business objectives, so letters of intent are best avoided.
Do these legal principles of contract formation give you pause because of their informality? (As in "Oops, I formed a contract!") They should! 
This brings us to consider emojis in contract negotiations. You can easily picture two persons sending a series of emails (or texts) about purchasing some real estate. Let's say that Able is the seller of a Lake Michigan condo, and Baker is the buyer. Baker drives past Able's condo, notices a "for sale" sign, visits Able's website where a $1.5M sale price is posted. Baker then texts Able as follows:
  • Baker: "Just drove by your Lake Michigan condo in Holland, Michigan, and noticed your 'for sale' sign. I offer you $1.2M in cash for your condo to be paid in full at closing on October 1, 2016."
  • To which Able texts back to Baker: "Your offer of $1.2M is too low. I counter with $1.4M."
  • To which Baker responds in a text to Able with only the green "Thumbs Up" emoji shown above.
  • Able appears at the closing on October 1 with a warranty deed to Baker. But Baker does not appear; the deal doesn't close. Able sues Baker to enforce the sale, saying that Baker's reply with the green "Thumbs Up" emoji was sufficient evidence to show that he accepted Able's counteroffer of $1.4M. Result? 
The validity of the deal might well hang on one thing: the meaning of the "Thumbs Up" emoji. To determine that, evidence may be introduced to show how (or whether) Baker used emojis in negotiating other business deals, and an emoji expert may testify about what a green "Thumbs Up" emoji generally means when used in contract negotiations. (And the inquiry might also include the objective meaning of a "Thumbs Down" or "O.K." emoji.) If the Michigan court (or jury) finds that this "Thumbs Up" emoji meant "I accept," then a valid contract was formed for the sale of Able's condo to Baker for $1.4M. But if it's determined that the "Thumbs Up" emoji instead meant "That's an interesting counteroffer, I'll consider it," then there was no contract! 

It's just a matter of time before a court considers the effect of an emoji or two in a contractual formation dispute. The outcome is likely to depend on outside evidence, and the litigation will in any event be a money pit. So don't let your company be the test case! Emojis may be cute and save time, but they have no place in your contract-negotiation emails or text messages. In fact, you may want to revise the email section of your employee handbook to ban emojis, at least in external communications!   
_________________________________________________
If you find this post worthwhile, please consider sharing it with your colleagues. The link to this blog is www.busklaw.blogspot.com and my website is www.busklaw.com. Thanks!
  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW 2021 Year in Review - Brit English Sums It Up!

  I'm at a loss to describe 2021 using American English, sorry. AmE has grown tiresome. Don't believe me? Just turn on your local TV news and listen for how many times the news people use "prior" instead of "before" and pepper their speech with "as well," frequently tacking it on after using "also" in the same sentence, as in "It will also rain tomorrow as well." How can all be WELL when every other sentence ends with AS WELL? Warning: don't play a drinking game to count the number of  AS WELLs or you'll be pished (as they say in Scotland) in 10 minutes. Which reminds me of why we should be thankful for Brit English to describe 2021: it was another year that we good guys got knackered .   Consider: Covid continues unabated - now improved with variants (get your booster, wear a mask)! The peaceful transition of the U.S. government after the 2020 presidential election almost didn't happen (can you say "insurrectio...

The BUSKLAW Halloween 2022 Post: Stephen King's Asides on Poor Writing in Fairy Tale

  Having just read  Stephen King's Fairy Tale in time for Halloween, it's appropriate to examine his asides on poor writing included in the book. (BTW, Fairy Tale is a good read with King's typical well-executed character development, plot, and a great finish to the story. But you have like the whole Grimm fairy tale genre before you read his take on it.)  Stephen King doesn't tolerate anything less than crisp prose. When the story's hero, Charlie Reade, tries to read a book about the origins of fantasy and its place in the world matrix ("what a mouthful"), he can only scan it because: It was everything I hated about what I thought of as "hoity-toity" academic writing, full of five-dollar words and tortured syntax. Maybe that's intellectual laziness on my part, but maybe not. Later on, Charlie tries to focus on a particular chapter in the "origins of fantasy" book about the story of Jack and the Beanstalk but is put off by "t...

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: The Foolhardy Practice of Using Faux Terms of Art in Your Contracts

  Most lawyers draft contracts. That's what lawyers do. And they use perceived terms of art ("TOAs") because they want to be paragons of contract-drafting precision. But here is where the canker gnaws:  the words that lawyers insert in their contracts as TOAs are actually not, potentially causing problems in clarity and interpretation. And as I've said time and again, these problems lead to disputes, and disputes lead to litigation, which is always time-consuming and expensive for the parties involved.  Let's first define TOAs in the legal context. According to Professor Bryan Garner in his Dictionary of Legal Usage , TOAs have specific, precise meanings that are "locked tight" and based on legal precedent. But then there are the faux TOAs, "whose meanings are often unhinged." Expert contract drafters, Garner says, know that clear, simple drafting is less subject to misinterpretation than using TOAs that are nothing more than "mere jargon....