IANAL so I don't know anything about anything. But I think the subtext of this story is one of the little guy getting comically screwed by a bigger player. If the South West Terminal, with capacity for 52000 tonnes of grain, wants to swing their dick on a farmer over 86 tonnes of undelivered grain, they'll find a way to win. Regardless of the law, going after a guy over a thumbs up emoji is audacious, at least.

I expect that in the future, someone in the farmer's position with bigger stakes and more money to play with will bring on a herd of lawyers to throw down a thousand esoteric & byzantine arguments & get a win. Maybe that's unfounded pessimism, I don't know. You just don't seem to hear stories about rich people taking Ls like this.

The headline is specifically written to incite outrage. That's how you get clicks these days.

It makes sense to me. Intent matters a lot in contract law. As long as it’s unambiguous that the parties intended to accept the contract, it shouldn’t really matter what form that acceptance takes.

This makes a ton more sense and also is missing from Engadget's summary of things which is annoying, is only in the linked article

That's a good point I hadn't considered and definitely puts it in perspective