Lets I buy some service from you and we sign some one-off contract. The next year I text you ‘same again please’ - you provide the same service to me. A reasonable person would conclude that there is an implied contact to provide the services under the terms perviously agreed. I can’t argue that I don’t have to pay because we didn’t sign a new set of terms.
Or you give me a quote and terms to build a house. If I let you start building it for me (and you can prove that I gave that instruction) there is an implied contract based the proposed terms even if we don’t sign any paperwork.
In the judgement here it seems to be a simpler assertion that the thumbs up in the context of asking about previously sent terms constitutes acceptance.
This never would have been considered a contract in a normal scenario.
I think you have a Hollywood-system mindset, not a US-system mindset. Just because it doesn't have a signature on it doesn't mean it isn't a contract
Agreement can be given in a number of ways. Signatures and official documents are a way to safeguard said assent, but in the case of ambiguity courts have broad latitude to interpret thing in the right context.
The buyer was concerned about this transaction, it seems - they sent a message asking:
“please confirm flax contract”
In response they did not get a contract. They got a thumbs up. What's next, text a thumbs up to a car salesman who is trying to get you to agree to a deal and now you've signed the contract? Contracts have much more in them than a text message could convey. Perhaps I'm being to legalistic, but this is a court matter.