A WhatsApp, Telegram or SMS message can carry contractual consequences if the context shows agreement. South West Terminal v Achter and The Aquafreedom show that courts look at substance, course of dealing and commercial context - not at whether the communication looked informal.
Commodity negotiations no longer live only in formal emails. Recaps, confirmations, broker updates, rate discussions and document approvals often move through WhatsApp, Telegram or SMS.
The legal risk begins when a party assumes that the channel itself makes the message informal. Courts usually ask a different question: what was said, to whom, in what context, and how similar messages had been understood before.
If a message in deal correspondence looks like acceptance, it may be treated as acceptance. That can include ok, received, looks good or a single symbol.
A Canadian buyer sent a farmer a photo of a contract for 87 tonnes of flax and asked him to confirm the contract. The farmer replied with one symbol: 👍.
When the market moved up and the flax was not delivered, the farmer argued that he had acknowledged receipt only. He said the thumbs-up did not mean agreement to the contract.
The court looked at the parties’ course of dealing. In previous transactions, short replies such as ok, yup and looks good had been followed by performance: grain was delivered and money was paid.
In that context, the thumbs-up was acceptance. The appeal failed, and in 2025 the Supreme Court of Canada declined leave to appeal.
In Southeaster Maritime v Trafigura, the dispute concerned negotiations for a time charter. Brokers used both email and WhatsApp throughout the process.
When the owners said by WhatsApp that they were out, Trafigura tried to characterise that message as informal broker chatter rather than a serious commercial position.
The English Commercial Court rejected that approach. WhatsApp had been used to communicate real commercial positions, rates, responses and instructions. The medium did not strip the message of legal or commercial significance.
The argument was fanciful.
A court will not read the message in isolation. It will look at prior transactions, established communication habits, the role of brokers, the wording of the request and the way the parties had previously signalled agreement.
If a short reply had historically meant agreement, the same reply may carry the same meaning in a later deal. If WhatsApp was used as a live working channel, it is difficult to argue later that one inconvenient message was not serious.
Subject to contract and subject to approval wording matters. If parties do not want correspondence to bind them before a final document or internal approval, that reservation must be stated clearly and early.
A like under a personal photo will probably not create a contract. A response in a working deal chat worth millions is assessed differently.
The platform does not neutralise the message. If the context shows agreement, a court may find agreement in a short reply or emoji. Precision in the chat is cheaper than explaining later that the thumb was only politeness.