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.
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.