Emoji has increased status – Kommersant FM
[ad_1]
A Russian court equated emoji to a signature in a document. The court considered the case of two individual entrepreneurs regarding the supply of a mobile van. The document stated that the colors of the object were approved by an additional agreement. However, the parties discussed the details via correspondence in the messenger. The customer made edits and received a “thumbs up” emoji in response. The supplier was sent an advance payment of almost 500 thousand rubles, but he did not deliver the kiosk on time, citing the fact that the contract had not been signed. The court sided with the customer, recognized the emoji as official consent and collected the deposit from the businessman with interest.
Such disputes are often resolved with the help of special expertise, says managing partner of the College of Media Lawyers Fedor Kravchenko:
“For many years now, the Civil Code has provided that concluding an agreement in writing is possible by exchanging messages over telecommunication networks, if the sender can be identified. In this case, everything was probably clear. But when the court doubts the interpretation of certain interpretations given by the parties, it is worth ordering a psychological and linguistic examination. And linguists are able to interpret non-verbal signals as well.
What pitfalls may arise in this case? If someone sends me an agreement on WhatsApp, and I accidentally click some emoticon in response, this will not lead to the conclusion of an agreement. You need to understand that in this particular case we are talking about the execution of real transactions for which amounts were paid, contracts were signed in writing, and therefore emojis are sent in order to agree only on some individual nuance.
First, the courts invite the parties to present their versions of what happened. And, if, for example, the plaintiff says that this was confirmation of the conclusion of the transaction, then the defendant is given the opportunity to present his counterarguments. They are also carefully examined, and it is weighed which side is more convincing. And if one side says that the meaning was such and such, and the other side says nothing, the court can agree with the only version available in the case.”
How to resolve such disputes if the parties use less clear emojis? Uppercase Legal lawyer Valeria Doskovskikh believes that it is necessary to wait for clarification from the Supreme Court:
“To use emoji both when signing contracts and challenging them, firstly, you need to wait for clarification from the Supreme Court. However, they will not follow too quickly, because such precedents are rare. It is still very common to challenge implied actions in the form of acceptance of a contract, although implied actions are officially prescribed in the Civil Code as a form of signing a contract.
How should the parties proceed in this case? In my opinion, they will go to cassation; there is also the possibility of filing a further appeal, because there is no uniformity there, and they do not agree with the interpretation. In any case, it must be challenged, because we do not have such precedents and similar judicial practice.
Therefore, although in Russia precedent is not a property and a means of proof, we still understand that “thumbs up” is not a legal means of confirming the signing of an agreement or consent to its terms.
This situation should somehow prompt the Supreme Court or higher authorities to resolve this dispute and establish justice. Because there is a misunderstanding caused by electronic interaction between the parties, which is now widespread in our country – most parties communicate via mail and instant messengers. Otherwise, the courts will be faced with a huge barrage of disputes and claims that will be unresolvable in principle.”
In June, a Canadian court made a similar decision. The buyer discussed the terms of delivery of the flax batch over the phone and sent a photo of the contract. He received a “thumbs up” emoji in response. Having not received the goods on time, the buyer went to court, which sided with the plaintiff and ordered him to pay 82 thousand Canadian dollars for failure to fulfill the contract.
Everything is clear with us – Telegram channel “Kommersant FM”.
[ad_2]
Source link
