From Text to Trial: Emojis in Contract Law
In Ross v. Garvey, 2025 BCSC 705, the British Columbia Supreme Court examined whether a thumbs-up emoji sent in a text message could create a binding and enforceable contract under provincial law in the context of a real estate transaction.
The case reflects the growing tension between evolving digital communication practices and longstanding legal formalities, particularly when it comes to contracts involving land.
Case Background
Daniel Ross (“Ross”), a real estate developer, entered negotiations with brothers Kyle and Matthew Garvey (the “Garveys”), who were privately selling their home in British Columbia. After exchanging emails and text messages, Ross submitted a signed offer to purchase the property. The Garveys rejected the offer but responded with a revised version. This version was sent via email but was never signed by the Garveys.
Ross signed and returned this revised contract. Ross then followed up with a text message indicating that he was prepared to move forward. In response, Kyle Garvey sent a 👍 (the “thumbs-up”) emoji. Ross took this as confirmation that a binding agreement had been reached. He urged the Garveys to sign the formal contract.
Ultimately, they did not sign the contract and instead sold the property to another buyer. Ross sued the Garveys, claiming breach of contract.
Court’s Findings
The Court found that a contract had been formed. Ross had accepted the Garveys’ counteroffer, and Kyle’s thumbs-up emoji was interpreted as an indication of agreement. However, the Court ultimately ruled that the contract was unenforceable. Under British Columbia law, a contract for the sale of land must be both in writing and signed. The Court held that while the thumbs-up emoji may reflect assent in casual communication, it does not meet the legal standard of a signature required to authenticate a land transaction.
The judge emphasized the need for a mark or symbol that clearly communicates the sender’s intention to be legally bound in a formal and deliberate way. A simple emoji, especially in the absence of a signed contract, did not rise to that level.
Ross argued that the emoji, combined with the context and delivery from a known phone number, should be enough to satisfy the statutory requirement. The Court disagreed, maintaining that the legislature intended a higher threshold for formality in land transactions to protect against ambiguity and disputes.
Traditional Significance
The Court made clear that even though modern communication tools are evolving, legal requirements such as the need for a signature in land contracts remain grounded in traditional notions of formality and clarity. A thumbs-up emoji may reflect positive sentiment, but it does not carry the legal weight of a signature in British Columbia.
Cross-Provincial and Situational Differences
This ruling contrasts with the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s decision in Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. v. South West Terminal Ltd., where the court accepted a thumbs-up emoji as a valid signature under the Sale of Goods Act for a grain purchase contract.
However, Ross v. Garvey involves a stricter statutory requirement, as it pertains to real property in the context of a real estate transaction, where formal written agreements are mandated by law. This contrast in rulings further emphasizes the significance of legal context.
Conclusion
Ross v. Garvey serves as a cautionary note about the limits of emojis in contract law, particularly in real estate transactions. The decision reinforces that while digital tools can facilitate communication, they cannot substitute certain formal requirements in specific legal contexts.
Seeking legal advice and properly executing documents is crucial to ensuring your agreements are legally binding and enforceable, especially in real estate transactions.
Our experienced legal team is dedicated to structuring your business dealings with precision, ensuring that every contract is correctly executed and fully enforceable.
Contact us at info@langfordlaw.com. We’ve got your back!