Completely agree, and anyone with any foresight would insist on something more robust. But very often the courts have to deal with situations where the parties did not have that foresight and instead proceeded to do business with one another on the basis of informal or very flimsily documented arrangements. And it falls to the court to look at what little evidence there is and determine (to the extent they can) whether there was an agreement and, if so, what the agreement entailed.

You would actually be surprised just how much business is conducted like this.

A single character emoji could easily be a typo as well.

Agree in that while verbally is fully a contract it is hard to verify unless recorded and possibly witnessed. Point being it is as legal as a written which many people do not understand.

As for the thumb up emoji, this particular person has used it in past and had a history of using it to approve services. In that context I think it is fully legitimate to hold him to it. Barring that, yes I agree on most cases it will not suffice as a legal document. It is much the same way a China often uses English for legal contracts as their written language has too many interpretations.

Don't make snap judgements about rulings. Especially just on article titles. In this particular case the defendant had a history of using 👍to accept a contract. Had done it NP a dozen times before. He was trying to use a technicality to weasel out of breaching a contract when he couldn't fulfill it.

You've got a point, there's some danger here, but I would have zero sympathy if someone ignored the fact that sarcasm isn't communicated well in text.

I don't know, I think a thumbs up is clear acceptance tbh.