The buyer, Kent Mickleborough, later spoke with Swift Current farmer Chris Achter on the phone and texted a picture of a contract to deliver the flax in November, adding “please confirm flax contract.”

Achter texted back a thumbs-up emoji. But when November came around, the flax was not delivered and prices for the crop had increased.

Mickleborough said the emoji amounted to an agreement because he had texted numerous contracts to Achter, who previously confirmed through text message and always fulfilled the order.

I think it's pretty clear he did intend the emoji to mean he agreed to the contract as he'd done this multiple times prior. It seems the only difference in this instance is that when it came time to deliver, the market price was higher meaning he could sell it for more money if that contract didn't exist. If he had no intention of following through and that the emoji only meant he "acknowledged receiving the contract", why didn't he ever once indicate his intent to the buyer in the 5 months between receiving the contract and the delivery date (which was outlined in the contract as indicated in the article).

You claim you suspect the plaintiff was trying to trick the defendant (by agreeing to give him $80k for grain?) but to me it seems like the opposite. It seems like the defendent was trying to give himself room to weasel out of the agreement if it meant more money in his pocket and by giving a someone ambiguous response, attempted to set up plausible deniability if it ever came to this. It didn't work out for him though.