'Canary in the Mine': Emojis, Emoticons Muddle Contract Considerations
At the root of the issue is the serious legal concern over whether there is a meeting of the minds such as to find and discern the parties' intent.
May 17, 2024 at 02:44 PM
4 minute read
ContractsA recent case in New Jersey Wawa, Inc. v. Barrington Redevelopment, LLC, No. A-3566-21, 2024 WL 1025394, at *8 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 11, 2024) has placed front and center the question of contract formation and interpretation. Gone are the days when contracts were written between "parties of the first part" and "parties of the second part." Written scrawled signatures have been replaced by typed signatures, electronic "stamped" signatures, clipped and copied cursive signatures, and a myriad of other alternatives and protocols—including those emotive digital icons known as emojis, or those keyboard representations of a face, known as emoticons.
At the root of the issue is the serious legal concern over whether there is a meeting of the minds such as to find and discern the parties' intent, let alone whether the statute of frauds is satisfied by these neo-hieroglyphics. Will https://pallyy.com/tools/emoji-translator replace the Rosetta Stone?
In Wawa, Inc., the case revolved around whether plaintiff was contractually liable under a lease for certain repayment obligations. As the court noted, the core of the analysis was whether the intent of the parties was plain and the language clear and unambiguous. Ultimately the court found no such liability based on the express language in the lease. Of note, though, was a reference in the statement of facts to an email asking if the municipality's chief financial officer could revise the invoice she had sent to use specific language, and the officer responded with an email containing a happy face emoticon and wrote "Third time is the charm." While the actual issue in the case is not directly relevant to the use of emoticons, the fact that in a discussion of a court looking to the intent of the parties, its reference took on significance enough to be referenced. The next step is whether a stand alone emoticon can take the place of a signature; at least one case has taken the next step to analyze an emoticon as just such an expression of consent.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppellate Division Ruling on Uber Eats Contract Highlights Evolution of 'Holding the Pen' Concepts
3 minute readFortune 500 Company Sues Metals Supplier Alleging It Used Proprietary Info Obtained During Bidding Process to Poach Talent
'A Confounding Record' Results in Sanctions for Discovery Violations in NJ Fed Court
4 minute readFTC's Ban on Noncompete Agreements Struck Down on the Eve of Implementation
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250