Broadcasting rights worth millions negotiated over WhatsApp. Commercial partnerships sealed via email and LinkedIn messages. Transfer windows closed on Instagram DMs.
Welcome to modern contract formation, where business moves faster than formal documentation.
The DAZN Case: A $1.7M WhatsApp Mistake
The recent Court of Appeal decision in DAZN Limited v Coupang Corp demonstrates the problem perfectly. DAZN held global broadcast rights for the FIFA Club World Cup. Coupang, which operates South Korea's leading streaming service, wanted to broadcast the tournament there.
Negotiations happened across multiple channels. Initial discussions and key terms were settled via WhatsApp during January and February 2025. The parties then escalated to email to finalise the agreement, consciously moving to a more formal medium. In those emails, they used language consistent with offer and acceptance.
Then DAZN received a better offer from a competitor. They tried to walk away, arguing that no binding contract existed because no formal written document had been signed. Coupang disagreed and sued.
Both the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal ruled for Coupang. The courts found that the parties had clearly intended to be immediately and legally bound by their email exchange. Key evidence included the WhatsApp negotiations that preceded the emails, the deliberate shift from WhatsApp to email for finalisation, and crucially, the fact that both parties had initially treated each other as legally bound. The absence of a signed formal contract was irrelevant.
This pattern is becoming standard across commercial disputes. The problem isn't just that contracts can form informally; it's that when they do, the evidence is fragmented across platforms.
The Fact-Finding Challenge
These disputes turn entirely on factual analysis. In DAZN, the Court of Appeal examined the WhatsApp messages and email chain to determine whether a contract existed. The outcome hinged on what those communications actually said and what could be inferred from them. Get the facts wrong and you lose, regardless of your legal arguments.
The problem is that reconstructing multi-channel negotiations at scale is genuinely difficult. Gather evidence from multiple platforms, each with different export formats and retention policies. Reconstruct conversations chronologically when they jump between channels. Identify legally significant communications from hundreds or thousands of messages and then spot contradictions between what parties now claim was agreed versus what the evidence shows.
Traditional document review tools weren't built for this.
Where Wexler Solves This
For contract disputes involving multi-channel communications, Wexler gives litigation teams several critical capabilities:
Complete chronological reconstruction: Wexler extracts factual statements from communications across all channels (e.g. WhatsApp, email, Teams, text messages) and structures them into a single, source-linked chronology. You can see exactly when each term was discussed, what was agreed, and whether there were subsequent changes.
Contradiction detection: When one party claims the price was different or that certain terms were never agreed, Wexler tests that claim directly against the evidence. The platform identifies inconsistencies between accounts and highlights where the documentary record contradicts witness statements or legal submissions.
Query-driven investigation: Rather than manually reviewing thousands of messages, you can ask specific questions: e.g. "When was the delivery date first mentioned?", "Did both parties acknowledge the price?", "Were there any subsequent changes to the payment terms?" Wexler searches across the entire factual record and returns source-linked answers.
Every insight is anchored to the original documents. Wexler doesn't scrape the internet for evidence, but shows you exactly what was said, where it was said, and how it fits into the broader factual narrative. This level of precision is decisive when you're arguing contract formation in court.
The Path Forward
As the DAZN case shows, courts will enforce informally negotiated contracts when the evidence demonstrates the parties intended to be bound. Business isn't slowing down to accommodate formal contract processes. The solution isn't to avoid digital communications but to master the factual record when disputes arise.
Winning these cases requires getting the facts right, comprehensively, and verifiably. That's what Wexler is built to do.