The professionalism of these services is poor. We don't even have the name of the person stirring up clickbait.
[0] The ABC is government funded, but still follows the same basic model as all the rest and it looks like they lifted this off Reuters.
Polluting a search indeed. On youtube, it feel like every search result, even if not news related, is filled with links to news. I just don't get it.
> it looks like they lifted this off Reuters.
The source of most news is the AP or Reuters. If the company wants to add their spin on a topic, they'll have their journalists add to the ap or reuters articles.
Or product reviews. I looked up “science of active noise cancelling headphones” to explain the science more easily to a friend, and 2/10 were actually what I wanted. The rest were “BEST HEADPHONES EVER?! What YOU need to know!”-type garbage.
I am not sure how much the future deliveries and spot prices diverge (I would expect significant savings on pre-purchasing), but there was potentially significant profit motivation for the seller to find any reason to back out of the deal.
I think that the assumption that a thumbs up is the same of a full contractual acceptance (vs "ok, I received it" or "contract looks good, let me now think about it") should only be made under a very specific and narrow context, that is, the party has a history of accepting contracts with brief sentences.
> In my opinion the signature requirement was met by the {{THUMBS UP}} emoji originating from Chris and his unique cell phone ... which was used to receive the flax contract sent by Kent. There is no issue with the authenticity of the text message which is the underlying purpose of the written and signed requirement of s. 6 of the SGA. Again, based on the facts in this case – the texting of a contract and then the seeking and receipt of approval was consistent with the previous process between SWT and Achter to enter into grain contracts.
> This court readily acknowledges that a {{THUMBS UP}} emoji is a non-traditional means to “sign” a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a “signature” – to identify the signator (Chris using his unique cell phone number) and as I have found above – to convey Achter’s acceptance of the flax contract.
This case seems to turn on weather any of these past contracts were actually binding, and maybe they were if there was a clear enough response.
However,if both parties have crappy business processes that run without signatures, I would think that disputed signatures would default to non binding.
>Had he insisted on a more formal process in prior negotiations with SWT, I doubt the judge would have granted summary judgement in this case (and SWT probably wouldn't have assumed the thumbs up was a signature).
Similarly, if SWT had insisted on signed contracts, there wouldn't be any question of if these terms were accepted.
It seems like there is at least some contribution here.
> So in short, what we have is an uncontested pattern of entering into what both parties knew and accepted to be valid and binding deferred delivery purchase contracts on a number of occasions. It is important to note that each time Kent added to the offered contract “Please confirm terms of durum contract” and Chris did so by succinctly texting “looks good”, “ok” or “yup”. The parties clearly understood these curt words were meant to be confirmation of the contract and not a mere acknowledgement of the receipt of the contract by Chris. There can be no other logical or creditable explanation because the proof is in the pudding. Chris delivered the grain as contracted and got paid. There was no evidence he was merely confirming the receipt of a contract and was left just wondering about a contract.
The part I agree with is that giving a thumbs up too the specific request to “Please confirm terms of durum contract” is acceptance.
The part that doesn't sit well with me is the argument that past performance of delivery alone validates a contract.
I think I agree with the decision, but it is because the farmer affirmed agreement to the terms each time, not because making a delivery implies that existence of a contract.
There was a formal contract that was sent and the terms of that contract were held to after the farmer said "ok", and the farmer never denied that he intended to be held to the terms of the contract that he had been sent. It's pretty clear to me that everyone involved believed there was a contract in the prior cases.
I am highlighting a specific part of the judgement: how much delivering and receiving payment demonstrates contract agreement in a vacuum.
Delivery is evidence that "yups" signified contractual agreement. Delivery absence the "yups" should not be construed as evidence of contractual agreement, at least the full terms specified.
Imagine a counterfactual without the "yups" but where Chris simply responded with "I will deliver the flax at that price".
>There can be no other logical or creditable explanation because the proof is in the pudding. Chris delivered the grain as contracted and got paid. There was no evidence he was merely confirming the receipt of a contract and was left just wondering about a contract.
To me this makes it sound like a pattern of behaving in accordance with one term in a contract can only be explained by agreement with the contract in its entirety.
But that's prerty clearly a contract. I agree to deliver goods in exchange for money, is still a binding contract even if you never sign anything.
So it may not be relevant for this case, but in general buying and selling without a contract saves you from having to pore through legal details.
I can totally see him approving an $80k deal with a thumb's up then turning into a lawyer when held to it.
Life is confusing to me, pretty much every day.
Dont pay anything until the very last minute and spend like there's no tomorrow, then when the credit eventually runs out and the tax man is knocking, declare bankruptcy and feign ignorance claiming for the rest of your life that the system was out to get you and youre just a victim of corruption.
The bar is low for be successful businesses . Lots of makeup on a pig. Ultimately, just do it.
He's probably just dragging his feet.
Yes.
The pluses aren’t interesting enough for me tell stories about on HN, so you’re getting a skewed image.
Just so we're all on the same page.
> A. An iPhone.
> Q. Good. Good. That’s the best kind of phone. So when you’re on your - - I have an iPhone as well.
What a funny exchange of pleasantries in cross examination…
I was a scout leader at the time, and one of the other leaders phoned another scout group to rent their building for our summer camp. They mentioned a price, he said "okay", intending to be "okay, I understood that's the price, let's discus" whereas they took it as "okay, I agree to this price, and we'll rent it".
Long story short, turns out verbal contracts like this very much are enforcible, and they were pretty adamant about enforcing it. Who knows if it would have held up in court, but just paying the "cancellation fee" was cheaper than lawyers,
Absolutely outrageous a volunteer non-profit organisation would squeeze another volunteer non-profit like this by the way; this was well before the planned date and the confusion came to light within days of the "okay", so they suffered basically zero damages. Bunch of twats.
It frankly seems like you're being willfully obtuse...
If Chris sincerely did not intend to sign the contract, he really should not have been in the habit of accepting contracts with a casual single-word reply in the first place. Had he insisted on a more formal process in prior negotiations with SWT, I doubt the judge would have granted summary judgement in this case (and SWT probably wouldn't have assumed the thumbs up was a signature).
[0] https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2023skkb116-480130.pdf