"The buyer, Kent Mickleborough, later spoke with Swift Current farmer Chris Achter on the phone and texted a picture of a contract to deliver the flax in November, adding 'please confirm flax contract.'"
If I've talked to you on the phone about the contract and then send the image with a request to confirm the flax contract, it's harder to argue that a thumbs-up only reflects receipt of the message instead of a confirmation, especially if no further response is sent by the recipient.
I can see how the buyer might interpret it as acceptance, but it’s such a vague response that it was irresponsible not to follow up, and I can’t help but disagree with the decision in this case.
What’s the point of the contract section where the signature goes? It’s there to remove ambiguity surely?
This is the key. It's a pity there isn't a widely accepted standard here. A 'friendly acknowledge' and an 'I accept'.
That said, this is why contracts exists.
I standby my assertion that the farmer simply forgot about this exchange and was shocked to get a bill for the replacement value of the contract when he didn't show up with it. This amount of flax is likely grown on about a quarter section in Saskatchewan, or 160 acres. The average grain farm size is almost 1,800 acres, so this size would be less than 10% of the total harvested area, and many farms are double and triple that size. Easy to forget about six months after the text exchange.