I feel like I am beating a dead horse here, but I dont think I am debating anything you are saying or the final judgement.

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".

What part of the judgment are you responding to? I didn't notice any part of the judgment that talked about delivery in a vacuum, it was always about the combination of factors.

Maybe in my opinion was a little bit colored from the comments in this thread before reading the judgment. From your excerpt, The Following part is stood out to me.

>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.

It's generally a mistake to take a few sentences from a legal document out of context. In the context of even the paragraph I cited (much more so in the document as a whole) it's clear what the judge is saying—he's talking about a combination of the text exchanges and the subsequent actions.