The aim of this work is to delve into some key legal issues surrounding Smart Contract applications. In the first and second parts, this paper defines the concept of Smart Contract and how it applies within the blockchain ecosystem. In the third part, this work exposes the functioning of this digital technology and the main advantage that it implies for solving the crucial issues of execution and breach of contracts. In the fourth section, this paper analyzes a set of problematic aspects that arise around Smart Contracts such as the scope and delimitation of them or the validity and certification of blockchain transactions. It also analyzes different issues related to the design of a legislative policy that addresses the design of a supranational and harmonized legal framework.
âSmart contractsâ are a way of using computers to make contracts unbreakable. Contracting parties do not need to trust one another to perform or rely upon intermediaries to enforce performance. Performance is guaranteed. This is supposed to be a victory for the ordinary person â a clever socioâeconomic application of cryptography that strips power from companies and governments and gives it to consumers. But it turns out that less trust does not mean more freedom, or better bargains. The law of contract supports valuable relationships both by enforcing duties and by allowing parties to escape the consequences of illâformed contracts and oppressive terms. Smart contracts remove these safeguards. Consumers may be bound, inexorably and without recourse, to contracts that are wholly devoid of virtue. The lesson of smart contracting is clear and urgent: when we design the future of commerce, we should direct our resources towards building, not emaciating, relationships of trust.
Whereas Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation (âGDPRâ) prohibits solely automated data processing, the precise scope of this qualified prohibition as well as related requirements remain untested and unclear. Examining Article 22 GDPR from the perspective of smart contracts sheds light on the resulting uncertainties and inconsistencies. Smart contracts indeed appear to qualify as a form of solely automated data processing under Article 22(1) GDPR. This implies that they can only be used where they meet the requirements of Article 22(2) and implement the safeguards of Article 22(3) GDPR. Under Article 22(2) GDPR, solely automated data processing can only be used where it (i) is necessary for a contract between the data subject and controller, (ii) authorized by EU or Member State law, or (iii) based on the data subjectâs explicit consent. At first sight, these requirements can be met in the smart contract context just as in others. Yet, the research unveils that even where a smart contract is related to a legal contract, that contract may not be between the data subject and controller. Furthermore, consent may have limited value in this context as under EU data protection law, the data subject must be able to revoke consent, which is difficult where the data processing cannot be halted at the request of the data subject. Where the requirements of Article 22(2) GDPR are met, Article 22(3) requires that data controllers implement safeguarding measures including a right to human intervention by the controller. There are ongoing uncertainties and controversies regarding the scope of this obligation that also permeate the smart contract context. Yet, solutions are already being developed to create forms of smart contracts that may be responsive to these legal obligations, confirming the GDPRâs innovation-shaping function. In accordance with Article 22(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (âGDPRâ) a data subject has the right ânot to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects or or or At a where automated data processing is on the of the regarding the scope of this qualified prohibition and for the to subject to to the of the data of the Data Protection already that be as and that the of human intervention in indeed to a of human these the a prohibition of automated processing resulting in This by to in as Article of the Data Protection In the GDPR a and forms of solely automated processing, of they or In of for the data the precise of this remain as it in the prohibition of solely automated data processing has in law, in automated not solely forms of data are or are based on this which in data processing and has to be the as it and that are able to human from the perspective of and Smart which are the of the are form of automated data processing that to and Smart contracts can be as that it is these are in the context of the of automated is also being with in to and has already used in for a of In automated is smart value smart contract is a that on of a and this of the of a this form of automated as automated for the of Article 22(1) GDPR, the data protection be a the to which smart contracts can be used in the smart contracts have from the perspective of contract as the has to Whereas a smart contract only in be to a legal contract, they of automated data processing, the of GDPR In this to light on smart contracts qualify as a form of solely automated data processing under the GDPR. smart contracts as to the of Article 22 as well as to the of smart contracts in the legal with to the Article 22 GDPR and to smart with a of that smart solely automated processing and the GDPRâs qualified prohibition in Smart contracts are of the with have as on that are of on the of In a smart contract is that is of these to they are just with the on and legal Furthermore, smart contracts are in to are to smart contracts the of this to a smart contract as of in including which the on these in a that it difficult for to by the of contracts that be and by and of a the smart contracts are that value and only it are a smart contracts are that can be by a of the of a the have and In the the has and as has on smart contracts are also legal even of contract of smart contracts are to which in including that of to in and in that smart contracts for of they are in with legal to smart contract is that the of a and the of that on the of by the or from the smart contracts can indeed be used as a of that smart contracts are also legal smart contract is not smart a Smart contracts are not as they are to as or to are can be or or that the as a has or have Smart contracts also cannot be qualified as contracts in the legal they are a to for smart contract is a of that a in for they are as of and can that smart contracts are smart contracts that they are the is the At on where the is smart contract and cannot be halted this is the or a or the on automated in of human or and and smart contracts can of is smart value already that the are and of to a at has the intervention of a or the is by the automated Where smart contracts are used to the of obligations, is the the can be used for the of in the of or to are for smart contracts for Smart contracts can be on to to where are In this the smart contract is to and where these a a is to the Smart contracts may to This has not as the has to smart contracts in to Smart contracts the of a of also by smart contracts as a of of not only also Where can be This can be as a legal or to on as by cannot be can also be for as the of including and to for and to the in by on also has as indeed in of as or which cannot be smart contracts have in to smart contracts from the of the that automated smart contract it not cannot be halted the has also a that that smart contracts also be on that smart contracts are a it is that they have a this automated that with a is of a smart Under this smart contracts can be in be as of a smart contract, as well as a and of these and are as the are in in a to human intervention in the the of automated In this is not a the and of smart contracts contracts have for a smart used in a or legal for is that in smart contracts are to the automated of This a of automated data GDPR, a qualified prohibition of solely automated data Article 22(1) GDPR that data have the right not to be subject to decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects or or or smart contracts are by this it must be (i) a smart contract as a decision based solely on automated processing, and (ii) that decision produces legal effects for the data subject or or GDPR automated data automated processing a of or a indeed that automated processing not be as a the of the GDPR in the of it the and the on the with in the of the In the for a of the that automated processing of data not to to the scope of Article it that automated a scope and may with or from also a of solely automated as to by human decision is on automated processing where is human in the to and smart automated can be of as of value in which of the is by a human GDPR only solely automated data This the a smart contract can be qualified as a This is of the GDPR that may have it also in of as the precise to be to the at This is by the that Article 22 only to by solely automated data processing, that data have the right not to be subject to a which may a based on solely automated data of in the in the of the GDPR a of which to as the of the GDPR indeed only used the of in Article which only by the these to be be by the of have that a is or with legal a is or with this is indeed the in can be as Article 22 that can have legal effects or In the that that a can also be a that the to be of of the to a of GDPR as data or in to the and protection of data the At where a smart contract to that be a human in the be as a This be the where a smart contract is used in to on the of it is the of a smart contract to a or a appear that the that human is in where is by law, even of have the of under the of related of smart contracts may qualify as measures and be the of EU data protection has of by Article the of on the of as of solely automated human This smart contracts a that is by and by a This even be qualified as a smart contract a of the as or are to qualify as for GDPR it is to that smart contract the of a smart contract as a decision or may also the of may that the to the of the smart contract of a as a decision a or of a In with the of smart is human at the of that Article 22(1) to that the a and is of the that in the smart in be on the and of the smart a human as the the smart contract data to Furthermore, are also to human Where a smart contract is to a legal contract as a smart contract is used to of the be to Whereas this to to the of Article it is to be that Article 22(2) explicit from the Article 22(1) prohibition where a smart contract is used to a human in the of the contract to be for the of the first be for explicit to this in the the of Article 22 GDPR as a the that the for the of Article 22(1) is to be the of the which indeed human may that smart contracts are at in by Article 22(1) GDPR. a the qualified prohibition of automated data processing only where automated processing produces legal or effects on the data subject. This is the of the Article 22(1) that Under Article 22(1) GDPR, data are only not to be to based on automated processing the legal effects or is necessary to smart contracts can (i) legal or (ii) This is to be on a and be as the of where be effects on at smart contracts have for as they is are or for a or is has as a in legal or obligations, legal or under a a smart contract is used to a obligation a in legal and where a is or a or is the of and the of smart contracts have legal effects and as a be by Article where legal effects are a smart may a data subject. Under Article a can be or and where the of automated data processing are or to be of This is to effects on the or of the or a or on the In this to Article scope of as effects of from context and to automated decision to to a on a or may be in in as where a to a Whereas is on the of is to be from or it to that is as is and data protection by effects a is it is to that this be in at is that effects that are from to to legal is is a that Article 22(1) a in a where with legal effects be by the prohibition of automated processing, even where they are a of a from the of automated of or automated human which are in that must be is that of the necessary for forms of solely automated data processing to be by the GDPR. is for solely automated data processing of data is data or is by Article 22 or to be data that as data for this to be the This is not from the of Article 22(1) which of a decision being to data This the of data the a data subject. that is a for data to qualify as be the in of or automated where the data is indeed may can be where data is not data and the decision is that Article 22 GDPR that smart contracts are to at in the scope of the GDPRâs qualified prohibition of automated This prohibition is automated processing can be on the of Article 22(2) GDPR. of Article 22 GDPR in which automated data processing in and the to smart that only with that not as in for processing to Article 22(2) the prohibition of automated processing not the is necessary for or a contract between the data subject and a data is by or Member State to which the is subject and which also measures to the data and and or is based on the data explicit consent. to the prohibition of automated processing under Article 22(1) it that automated is where it is necessary for the or of a contract between the data subject and the controller. that the for smart contracts in the automated of legal Where the smart contract is to a automated processing in the form of can be that the legal contract is between the data subject and the data controller. the of the and the that automated must be of the of a the that that this contract must between the and the data which has in the of the In this not where a a smart contract to automated the is a to the contract, and at the the data in to the Where and that can be and used by are used to the smart contract, the that the contract be between the data subject and the data In a data may be in of the data to the be with the smart contracts may also be to be data for the of Article 22 GDPR where they a decision that is to the data subject where this in data that or to or the on also qualify as Under the GDPR, a data is the that or the and and of data has that a of this to be the in that of a are controllers with regarding of the data that the of a must be to the and protection of data a the of a on be as by of in on and the of and in the of the and of processing the data of the to that where a smart contract is the that is on also a data controller. Yet, and are not by a legal that be as the controller. these are by the of a of including and and as to as the from the perspective of the Data Protection that smart contract can also be data controllers in Whereas the precise of the data has to be in light of a it to that at the as well as at the smart are under the GDPR. is to be that the the to the smart contract also be a these a in to the of Article is is as of on this it to that the of a with at of controllers be to this it is the of as Article that solely automated data processing may where it necessary for or a contract between the data subject and a data the of this at this it be to that solely automated processing only be used where are Yet, is can be on the of the of solely automated data processing in the that of a and automated the of be indeed as and are well in the of the the has that is not where and to the this that to be the by the by the it the in to processing that where of of for a this of may automated necessary as a first in the this is is a to be as the be even it of There regarding the scope of and can that is necessary in the of or Article GDPR Member or the EU to create to the prohibition of automated processing that data subject and are At this has at EU or Member State to solely automated data processing in to smart At the Member to related to may on Article GDPR for these of this in the that the requirements under Article 22(3) GDPR, not Article GDPR automated data processing where it is based on the data subjectâs explicit consent. Where is the smart contract this can be in a as explicit consent be on the as the contract is can be in as forms of where is legal contract to the smart at in the it also be to consent in are in this the of consent, which is not in the has by the in on consent as necessary in that data protection that of data is consent a or on of the data subject. Where consent is in of the of data processing, the data subject of which the form of a or the in of form or Data controllers are to of of consent is a Article GDPR requires that the data subject has right to or consent at this may not the of processing based on consent that to this in the of automated data processing this is it may be difficult for a data subject to to the data processing in consent. In and in the of that data processing as data be by the controller, which to the of or data in that data controllers to on consent as a for data processing Article 22(2) a of to smart contracts under EU Where this is the requirements must be on automated processing under Article or safeguarding measures in the form of a right to human intervention Article 22(3) and a right to be and has that where automated processing a a Data Protection may be Article 22(3) that where automated processing is authorized on the of the first or of Article the data implement measures to the data and and at the right to human intervention on the of the controller, to or of and to the EU data protection only automated data processing where it is in is indeed based on a Article 22(1) only where processing solely automated the of human by of Article 22(3) processing can be solely automated Article 22(3) obligation that automated data processing can only under Article or where is of human intervention on of the and the data subjectâs and are Whereas the precise of the are subject to the of human intervention is Data are of to not on the of human for solely automated data processing under the GDPR. this to smart is human at must it be and is the data in a to it is to human intervention must to the of the data protection has that human intervention must not just be the form of a by the and to the a of the including by the data that human intervention not just be is has that to by and even where is that it is even where a is as a human as a it may be used as the where the human or the the must the in human intervention There is to this that it is that human intervention the decision has in the of the as a of In the smart contract that the of the smart contract it has a this is as a is for the it to the for of human smart contracts are to with the GDPR to of automated as In to the of human intervention for the of Article 22(3) may be for smart contracts to a smart contract to human intervention in a as in or can be as the smart contract is a by In as to be from human this is for the of a smart contract a even a for human intervention are to as these may be with the to human must be to Article that the data human the of the data in of and and is to be that be a of controllers at and qualify as a controller. of human intervention must be by these or only of the is that Article GDPR and requires that controllers that the of that the data subject can This that controllers are to with the of human it that the is that data controllers have that the of be with to the of the Where solely automated processing the data subject is to this of data Where automated processing the data subject has a right to be this subject to Article GDPR requires that the data with and the processing of this to be in to automated data processing on the between and as well as GDPR. Article GDPR that a data subject is to be the of automated including profiling, to in Article 22(1) and at in the as well as the and the of processing for the data subject. Article GDPR the in where data not from the data is also by Article that of be to the data subject. the (i) of automated (ii) the and (iii) the and the of the to a to the right to as it is with in these that in of solely automated processing, a data subject from including the right of the decision and to the Whereas the can be difficult to as it is not by the of the GDPR and this by the may be as that to of the precise in which a decision is is to be by the data controller, that the of also in this context. There has as to the of the of in the and of in is in the of a is that of a are not are to the of the and can with the that they cannot be used for a of the the GDPR a of for in the have the of the of just they uncertainties have to as to are under the GDPR. may the GDPR a to that may protection to data the a has regarding the of the GDPRâs right to In a first and that the GDPR a to in of a a to of not in the General Data Protection that is only a right to in only as right for be the of right to be automated decision that the between and Article 22 from the that a right to for Article 22 this in the of from the a in with by and that and 22 be that they for Whereas protection may a data subjectâs right to they that the of protection be to data protection and a to and that the on the right be a right to by or a right to used in that a data to be and the of right to as a where they have by the have the as to these to be In the the has on these that is of data controllers is that they (i) the data subject that they are in solely automated processing, (ii) the (iii) and the and to these the of data these data are as are the is for the and it is used to a decision the data appear to to in of the that is used is as to the data subject the or the on in the is is ânot a of the used or of the the to the data subject be to the for the these are a in the is a of the to be that of or of the that in it is not In the to to the data subject the or the on in the This the of which the or measures a for the and the of these requirements in a smart contract context be that these on the data the as the of the obligation be Smart contracts in the form of data and the in processing is a that can be and is the between the right to and the to automated processing explicit consent under Article may of is in to for consent to be Where the of automated processing are not it may be consent cannot be This may in a where is under Article as a of the obligation to the data subject of of data This is of as ongoing as have as to can a of a that may have data and may or There is a regarding and automated can be and which is is the of In data controllers that on smart contracts also be subject to a to a Data Protection In on automated processing obligation to a Data Protection are of the of the processing on data that to be by data controllers where the the context and of processing are of to the and of which can be the in where are Under Article GDPR are in where processing (i) a and of of based on automated (ii) data and data related to and or (iii) where the of a on is Where a that processing in a for data and measures to the can be the is to the At first the that a must the of a smart are where automated processing that Article to not automated as Article this is only the where processing a and of of it cannot be that as a the context and of processing are of to the and of be that in smart contracts are a a that smart contracts as a be of smart contracts has on in as in or automated and where a smart contract is on a of a and are to a as this a that a from a data protection it on a where and is from in to of the of as and of on these be as a for data a is in that a to be to the precise for the data subject as they from the and can also be as in with the data protection by Article GDPR requires the of the data protection of data protection by and data protection by data processing Article GDPR requires that controllers implement and measures to meet the GDPRâs at the of processing as well as the of In this the of the the of and the context and of processing as well as the of and for and of by the to be In the GDPR a for the to implement and measures that the requirements not just to the processing also to the as to that only the data for of the are these requirements is that may be a of to the of it is that to the of the of and it to has in the of the Data Protection that and measures to be in to processing and also is a of by as it is that in are measures that data processing, the of a data subject to data processing and and by the controller. have for smart Article GDPR obligation for to this as well as the they on in a with the GDPR not just Article the requirements of data protection by and data protection by smart contract on a This is are in a that with of the GDPR it is difficult for to meet the data they are a of or to implement data subject as they to and they are to human In light of these on Article GDPR, which the of as to with the data protection by and data protection by requirements have to are the scope of Article GDPR as the has not on the and the is in a with these is as it is a the of for of the has that the GDPRâs prohibition of solely automated processing to smart Whereas on automated smart contracts can be where it is necessary in a is authorized by law, or where the data subject to the processing, and must be in a data protection This the of human the of regarding the of processing in a in smart contract must also be in a that for the data protection by and by with these requirements at in be with as This is in the context. these that they can be in of or this human intervention in the and of the data Smart contracts can be used as a to that Yet, as smart contracts are to to and legal these and they may also GDPR in to by including the a these not in from have and it is that on for and to the smart contracts on these There is ongoing to smart contracts in of with of the that can as a in the or that the automated that smart contracts not be the automated and the of is ongoing of with that the of smart contracts and automated in this are ongoing research and to smart contracts a in to to be used in This may to have effects on GDPR as they of human the of the to the with it can In a is human which is by the data subject and smart contracts of to a a of a the to a that is based on that of the and that of the of the and the and the Where a to the to the Where a that cannot be by the the to as these the requirements of Article 22(3) GDPR which to human Furthermore, are ongoing of to be smart At it of automated with where the smart contract forms of a that be is a of a related contract in the smart contract and the smart contracts or has a the contract, as by to of this smart be used to the smart in the of a or to legal contract be with and the smart contract that to and the and which the smart contract with human of are smart contract that can be used in are on
Abstract Smart contracts are innovative contracts that differ from traditional ones in that they are self-executing, as they entail the possibility of representing contract terms in programming code that gets automatically executed on a blockchain or other distributed ledgers. Following the latest developments in blockchain technology, smart contracts have been the focus of growing attention and are currently among the major innovations that are taking place in financial services. This paper investigates the scope for their application in insurance both in the near and longer term, exploring the legal challenges that they pose. The analysis shows that in the near term smart contracts will be mainly exploited to automate underwriting, claims handling and payouts. It considers how the automation of these processes will operate at law and emphasises the impact that smart contracts can have especially on the reduction of transaction costs and on the very essence of the insurance contractâthe insurerâs promise to pay. Building on current technological developments, the paper then turns to role that smart contracts can play in insurance in the longer term, advancing the prospect of the automation of the entire insurance contract. In particular, it argues that the interaction between smart contracts and artificial intelligence and machine learning can challenge traditional frameworks of thought such as incomplete contracting and, in the farther-distant future, will culminate in contracts that will both self-interpret and self-enforce their termsâwhat can be called the true smart contracts. The analysis identifies and addresses the main legal issues that can arise in this context, exploring how to strike a balance between the goal of fostering innovation and the need to ensure policyholder and investor protection.
The blockchain cannot be described just as a revolution.It is a tsunami-like phenomenon, slowly advancing and gradually envel oping everything along its way by the force of its progression. 1* J.D. Candidate, University of Wyoming College of Law, Class of 2020.I would like to thank the hard-
The development of new technologies has different effects on the existing law. Smart contracts are one of the forms of the new technologies that questions the application of the traditional contract law on commercial transactions using smart contracts. In that context, the enforceability of contractual transactions concluded in the form of smart contracts represent one of the major legal questions. Moreover, the question is whether the existing English contract law needs to be modified in order to secure the enforceability of smart contracts. These issues will be, accordingly examined in this paper with the aim to understand better the relationship of the traditional contract law, on the one side, and, smart contracts, on the other side.
This essay investigates the potential of smart contracts to replace the legal system as an infrastructure for transactions. It argues that (contract) law remains relevant for most transactions even if they are entirely structured by way of smart contract. The reason for this is that the power of smart contracts to create and enforce obligations against attempts by the legal system to thwart their execution is limited. These limitations are most relevant for obligations to perform certain actions outside the blockchain, but also apply to other obligations contingent on facts outside the records stored on the blockchain.
Abstract: The success of smart contracts based on distributed ledger technology (DLT) springs from their potential to secure contract performance when traditional legal enforcement remedies are not practical or too costly. EU policymakers and regulators have struggled for years to facilitate the enforcement of consumer rights while reducing transaction costs for businesses. The article argues that smart contracts can be a viable tool to address such a challenge. By virtue of their self-executing and tamper-proof character, smart contracts are suited to substantially reduce transaction costs in B2C relationships. So far, several legal scholars have raised concerns regarding both smart contracts inability to reflect relational aspects of contract governance and the augmented complexity generated by the translation of an agreement into computer code. Building upon the extant literature on the topic, the article explains why these problems can be overcome when it comes to consumer rights that are standardized and easily verifiable. Thus, smart contracts will likely prove suitable for specific industries, such as the transport sector. The article concludes that policy makers and regulators shall take the lead by testing, with a sector-specific approach, smart contracts ability to improve the consumer protection toolbox.
Abstract: This contribution examines the formation of (blockchain-based) smart contracts. The term smart contract is used to refer to software programmes which are often, but not necessarily, built on blockchain technology as a set of promises, specified in digital form, including protocols within which the parties perform on these promises. It is regularly said that smart contracts are neither legal contracts in the traditional sense nor they are smart and that the term is therefore a misnomer. The crucial question this article is trying to answer is whether the traditional common law concept of contract formation is seriously challenged by the rise of smart contracts. As such, are smart contracts marking the end of contract formation as we know it or is it just much ado about nothing? RĂŠsumĂŠ: Cette contribution examine la formation de contrats intelligents (basĂŠs sur la blockchain). Le terme de contrat intelligent est utilisĂŠ pour faire rĂŠfĂŠrence aux programmes de software qui sont souvent, mais pas nĂŠcessairement, conçus sur la technologie de la blockchain comme un ensemble de promesses, spĂŠcifiĂŠes sous forme digitale, comprenant des protocoles au sein desquels les parties accomplissent ces promesses.On a souvent dit que les contrats intelligents ne sont ni des contrats juridiques au sens traditionnel ni intelligents et que le terme est donc inappropriĂŠ. La question cruciale Ă laquelle le prĂŠsent article tente de rĂŠpondre est de savoir si le concept traditionnel dans la common law de la formation du contrat est sĂŠrieusement mis au dĂŠfi par lâarrivĂŠe des contrats intelligents. Comme tels, les contrats intelligents marquent-ils la fin de la formation des contrats telle que nous la connaissons ou ne sâagit-il finalement que de âbeaucoup de bruit pour rienâ?
Abstract: This article investigates the legal dimension of smart contracts. In particular, it reviews their existing definitions in some of the main laws enacted and scholarly articles published to date, proposes its own version, to then move on to consider to what extent new legal categories are warranted to deal with this apparently totally new way of making legally binding agreements. It concludes by providing some final remarks with regard to relevant legal categories and attempts to advance a number of solutions to the legal questions raised by the application of smart contracts. RĂŠsume: Le prĂŠsent article ĂŠtudie la dimension juridique de contrats intelligents. En particulier, il passe en revue leurs dĂŠfinitions qui se trouvent dans certaines des lois essentielles promulguĂŠes et dans des articles acadĂŠmiques publiĂŠs jusquâĂ prĂŠsent, il propose sa version propre, et considère ensuite dans quelle mesure de nouvelles catĂŠgories juridiques sont justifiĂŠes pour traiter cette manière apparemment tout Ă fait nouvelle de passer des accords juridiquement obligatoires. Il conclut par quelques remarques finales concernant des catĂŠgories juridiques importantes et tente dâapporter certaines solutions aux questions juridiques soulevĂŠes par lâapplication de contrats intelligents.
Abstract This article explores âsmart contractsâ from first principles: What they are, whether they are properly called âcontractsâ, and what issues they raise for national contract law. A âsmartâ contract purports to record contractual promises in language which is both intelligible to human beings and (ultimately) executable by machines. The formalisation of contracting language that this entails is, I argue, the most important aspect for lawyersâjust as important as the automation of contractual performance. Rather than taking a doctrinal approach focused on the presence of traditional indicia of contract formation, I examine the nature of contracts as legal entities created by words and documents. In most cases, smart contracts will be âwrapped in paperâ and nested in a national legal system. Borrowing from the idiom of computer science, I introduce the term âcontract stackâ to highlight the complex nature of contracts as legal entities incorporating different âlayersâ, including speech acts by the parties in both natural and formal languages as well as mandatory legal rules. It is the interactions within this contract stack that will be most important to the development of contract law doctrines appropriate to smart contracts. To illustrate my points, I explore a few issues that smart contracts might raise for English contract law. I touch on the questions of illegality, jurisdiction, and evidence, but my focus in this paper is on exploring issues in contract law proper. This contribution should be helpful not only to lawyers attempting to understand smart contracts, but to those involved in coding smart contractsâand writing the languages used to code them.
Suppose that a supplier of goods or services and a consumer enter into a contract for goods or services. If the terms and conditions of the contract are prefixed by the supplier unilaterally and the choice of the consumer is just to accept or decline, it is very easy to implement an automatic contracting process for them. Everyday, we experience such simple and automated contracting processes when we ride on the subway and buses using IC cards. / However, in many cases, the terms that each of the parties to a contract deems acceptable in advance are very abstract and have some flexibility. Such anticipated terms may include the conditions most preferred by a party to those least preferred. There is no guarantee that the resulting contract will satisfy both parties. The terms and conditions of the contract to be executed are likely to have multiple alternatives. The finally decided terms just represent one of many possible alternatives. It would be difficult for such terms to completely satisfy both parties. In order to make smart contracts widely implemented in our society, a system that automatically matches the terms and conditions of both parties to a contract (hereinafter, referred to as a smart contract platform) must be able to establish a contract with fair and reasonable terms and conditions that can satisfy both parties in such complex situation. The currently spreading use of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) using deep learning is likely to make such a smart contract platform realistic. / However, suppose that both parties to a contract could have gone through a human to human negotiation, and that the final terms are not preferable or disadvantageous to one of the parties. Possibly, such disadvantaged parties would try to persuade themselves that such undesirable or disadvantageous results were caused by their or their agentâs incompetence. However, if such undesirable or disadvantageous terms are caused automatically by a smart contract platform, the disadvantaged party may feel great frustration because they can hardly find a reason to blame themselves. Also, it is possible for a smart contract platform to manipulate the terms of a contract by utilizing the very wide scope of acceptable terms prefixed by the consumer, thereby, giving an advantage to the supplier. Such manipulation will be deemed unfair, even though it does not necessarily constitute fraud. Moreover, if a smart contract platform is provided exclusively by one or a very limited number of companies, the platform may be programmed to be advantageous or disadvantageous to specific or specific categories of suppliers. For example, a smart contract platform used to enable electricity supply companies and consumers who want to quickly charge their electric vehicles (EVs) to contract automatically may be programmed to increase the probability that established and conventional electricity supply companies can contract with consumers within the scope of the terms prefixed by the consumers. It is also probable that a smart contract platform will apply different terms and conditions, such as by giving priority to contracts with consumers of certain electricity supply companies, and give advantages to some of them, and cause disadvantages to others. The implementation of smart legal tools in the society is likely to require us to design legal tools such as the obligatory disclosure of an automatic contracting process, auditing or monitoring by a third party, and competition among multiple smart contract platform providers, to ensure a fair smart contracting process, and also to prevent misappropriation of smart contract platforms for unfair purposes. However, designing such legal tools is likely to cause another problem. A law must be enforced based on the evidence required by the law itself. If a smart contract platform is organized and operated by a fixed algorithm that does not change and update itself automatically, it would be plausible to prove that the platform was programmed by ab human to cause unfair results. However, suppose that an A.I. implemented in a smart contract platform keeps learning and constantly and incrementally updates itself. It is improbable that lawyers could prove that a smart contract platform producing unfair results was really programmed by a human to cause such results. To tackle such problems would also be the duty of lawyers.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors impacting the student satisfaction with the public and private universities of Malaysia and Pakistan, which are countries representing South/South-East Asia in cross-culture perspective.The study has applied a quantitative survey design guided by five hypotheses.A questionnaire was distributed among the students of private and public universities.A conceptual framework has been developed based on the modification of Student Satisfaction Index (SSI) model to measure the satisfaction of students from different aspects, such as university image, university location, quality of academic staff, university facilities, student expectation, overall student satisfaction.The research method used was a survey-based questionnaire that consisted of a total of 396 responses from the university students.The data were analyzed with SPSS and SmartPLS 3; the results indicate that when the comparison was made separately between private and public universities of Malaysia and Pakistan.The comparative statistical score was obtained using independent sample t-Test, the university facilities of Malaysian universities resulted higher than universities in Pakistan.Therefore, the independent sample ttest results conclude that the university facilities have a significant evidence (p=0.00) to support our research findings that university facilities do affect the student satisfaction more in Malaysia (mean=4.1788)than Pakistan (mean =3.7212) and the research hypothesis is significant that there is a significant difference in student satisfaction towards university facilities in Malaysia and Pakistan.Similarly, the quality of academic staff (p=0.035) has a significant effect on student satisfaction in Malaysia (mean=3.8283) and Pakistan (mean=3.6641).Furthermore, this leads the student expectation and overall student satisfaction level of Malaysia students are higher than students in Pakistan.However, student satisfaction level on university image and university location in Malaysia and Pakistan do not differ.The study is useful for university management to improve university students satisfaction.The future researchers are recommended further explore demographic and cultural variables impact on student satisfaction.
As a consequence of the blockchain revolution, a key challenge of our times is to identify the legal boundaries of smart contracts and thus to develop conflict rules for divergences between state law and technology-based code. Even if smart contracts are technologically self-executing, they are not necessarily legally enforceable. Rather, they must satisfy a variety of legal and contract law requirements. Two different levels of such rules can be differentiated, namely rules of recognition and substantive restrictions. At both levels, it emerges that either the lawmaker can intervene and introduce new, specific rules, or the judiciary can develop rules on the basis of existing and more general legal standards. For example, at the European level the Unfair Terms Directive and (in future) the Directive on Contracts for the Supply of Digital Content limit the potential scope of smart contracts. At national level, the rules on self-help constitute a crucial legal boundary. At least some applications of blockchain technology will be subject to these rules, strictly limiting their admissibility. Under German law, for instance, a waiver of the relevant provisions is largely excluded. In the case of cross-border situations, the comparative divergence of self-help rules will create legal uncertainty and may hinder the use of smart contracts.
Smart contracts can be defined as computer codes which are run digitally by computer programs to utilise the negotiation, formation, and performance of an automated and irreversible agreement between the contracting parties. Smart contracts are distinguished from other forms of contracts in terms of the way they are concluded which is through Blockchain Technology. In contrast to conventional contracts established through speech, written words or actions, smart contracts are algorithmic and self-executing agreements. In this article, smart contracts will be discussed from the perspective of their general rules and features and the Iraqi law. This study analyses the formation mechanisms of the general principles in Iraqi law governing the contracts and how these mechanisms can be applied to the new technological framework of smart contracts. In addition, integrating smart contracts into the current legal provisions in Iraq is examined.
A forum selection clause is a form of contractual waiver. By this device, a contract party waives its rights to raise jurisdictional or venue objections if a lawsuit is initiated against it in the chosen court. (If the forum selection is exclusive, then that party also promises not to initiate litigation anywhere other than in the chosen forum.) The use of such a clause in a particular case may therefore raise a set of questions under contract law: Is the waiver valid? Was it procured by fraud, duress, or other unconscionable means? What is its scope? And so on. Unlike most contractual waivers, however, a forum selection clause affects not only the private rights and obligations of the parties, but something of more public concern: the jurisdiction of a court to resolve a dispute. The enforcement of such a clause therefore raises an additional set of questions under procedural law. For instance, if the parties designate a court in a forum that is otherwise unconnected to the dispute, must (or should) that court hear a case initiated there? If one of the parties initiates litigation in a non-designated forum that is connected to the dispute, must (or should) that court decline to hear the case? This Report analyzes the approach to these questions in the United States.1 Part I provides a brief background on the general attitude toward forum selection clauses. Part II surveys current state law on their use, in consumer as well as commercial contracts. Part III addresses the interpretation of forum selection clauses as either permissive or exclusive. Part IV analyzes the effect of permissive clauses in state and federal courts. Finally, Part V turns to choice of law problems, particularly as they arise in the course of litigation in federal courts. Historically, forum selection clauses were viewed as contrary to public policy and therefore invalid.2 The most frequently invoked justification for this rule, relevant only in connection with exclusive clauses, was that parties should not be able to deprive a court of jurisdiction it would otherwise have over a dispute.3 However, other explanations for the traditional approachârelevant in connection with permissive as well as exclusive clausesâappear in the case law as well. Some courts rejected forum selection clauses out of suspicion that the partiesâ intent in selecting a particular forum was to circumvent otherwise applicable substantive policies. Others worried that permitting parties to choose their forum would âbring the administration of justice into disreputeâ by highlighting considerations such as the relative intelligence or impartiality of particular judges.4 Overall, the sense was that â[t]he jurisdiction of our courts is established by law, and is not to be diminished, any more than it is to be increased, by the convention of the parties.â5 Over time, and given increasing recognition of the need for certainty and predictability in interstate and international commerce, adherence to the traditional view diminished. This shift manifested itself in the case law6 and elsewhere. For example, in 1968, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted a Model Choice of Forum Act7 based on the Hague Conferenceâs 1964 Convention on the Choice of Court. Although the model law gave courts considerably more discretion than the Convention did in enforcing forum selection clauses, its starting point was that the use of such clauses was desirable.8 And the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, adopted in 1971, included a section stating that a forum selection clause will be given effect âunless it is unfair or unreasonable.9 The real turning point in U.S. doctrine was the Supreme Courtâs 1972 decision in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore, Co.10 The case involved a forum selection clause included in a contract for towage negotiated by the U.S. owner of a drilling rig and a German towing company. The agreement designated the London Court of Justice as the exclusive forum for litigation; however, when its rig was damaged, the U.S. company brought suit in the United States District Court in Tampa, Florida. The to or the on the of the forum selection that such were the court this and its decision was The U.S. Supreme Court then and that the forum selection clause was to a of the that as as I to of the Courtâs that have frequently in and the rejected the that contractual of jurisdiction and venue were as against public Court did that the of a particular forum selection clause be on the of in contract such as or or of by the the a of of exclusive forum selection as a general the parties that any litigation would in the designated any other court should to hear the the on a court other than the designated court to an otherwise and exclusive forum selection if enforcement would be under the the Court that the forum would be so that the would be of in or if enforcement would a public policy of the forum in suit was The Bremen decision have effect for it involved an international its of a of the Court to the of international the have to the international the case involved the of and the decision was therefore on federal courts of jurisdiction on state the Bremen these courts jurisdiction in adopted the Bremen it in contracts. State courts to the Bremen in as well as international the decision the U.S. approach to forum selection clauses. The of the Bremen the of forum selection clauses only to exclusive forum selection clauses, and so this Report only in The of the Courtâs to the general of private as to forum to permissive clauses. The Part addresses the of such under current law. the of U.S. forum selection clauses, permissive and exclusive, viewed with A have the of such based on the Model Choice of Forum most however, the and of forum selection clauses by law. that law the Bremen it the of that case into that the for example, courts have adopted a that analyzes the forum selection clause was to the it should be as exclusive or it the parties and the in and the in of enforcement by a that it is under the or for such as or Some have also adopted to (or litigation contracts. A of the traditional to forum selection clauses. one this is in the case that forum selection for example, provides that or in a by any party is enforcing rights under the contract in is as it is against the public policy of however, courts have these the toward the more enforcement of forum selection is to as the the of these general is on exclusive forum selection clauses that to deprive courts of jurisdiction they would otherwise have the use of forum selection clauses in of the of is particularly For instance, a of and have adopted to with a of substantive Some to choice of court. for instance, in a agreement that jurisdiction or venue in a forum of this Others general any contractual that would as a waiver of the rights by the under the of the courts to and to a forum selection clause as a waiver of any of the Laws of For example, law any contractual that as a waiver of any of the rights in the A court the forum selection clause included in a agreement to be it the to for a by a The any agreement that that the an against the or in a venue of And in forum selection clauses included in the these of must be a general policy of toward forum selection clauses. the of is not the of private parties to of jurisdiction and it is contractual parties of The effect of such on choice of court is to the of particular of unfair any clause in a a forum selection clause be as on the of instance, the of a or in the of one of the parties instance, that it was procured by duress, fraud, or the is an in and of and other However, parties frequently the of forum selection clauses in on the of that it would be unconscionable to to a clause that not Bremen itself this on the of the clause in that And Supreme Court did the a for example, the Court the that forum selection clauses their enforcement not however, in v. the Supreme Court to the of The Bremen to for the of form The case involved an exclusive forum selection clause included the on a for on a A federal court of that the forum selection clause was and on that to permitting the to in a court other than the one The Supreme Court The Court the forum selection clause the it would any clause in a contract on a it or it it for that parties to the contract an exclusive forum selection the in the form of a on the in it be by its and the the form of on the the Court the clause was not Although the clause was not and the parties the clause was therefore to the Bremen was an and therefore on federal courts and state courts only in that however, the decision a and it is in of contract is that courts have on the of its in a of For instance, courts have to forum selection clauses included in consumer on the of the that they of the forum selection This is a courts that parties of forum selection clauses if the relevant clauses in or otherwise set other in the if the parties did not in the forum selection clauses in parties of and have to be for This is a Overall, the general that such in the consumer as well as the commercial is by well U.S. law, as as is by of is not for a contract to be as a general the that a forum selection clause only one party not it courts to clauses that objections to jurisdiction and venue by only one of the contract The is of clauses that the choice of court permissive for one party and exclusive for the Overall, the United is a policy in of enforcing forum selection clauses. courts party enforcement of a clause a of Forum selection clauses raise a of questions of the parties to only contractual out of their or to their they to federal as well as state courts in a and they the choice of court to be exclusive or This Part on the of these The general in the United States is that a forum selection clause will be as permissive it of most the or of such is A permissive forum selection clause the partiesâ to or in an a exclusive agreement not only a forum but the or in to litigation a clause these interpretation is more is approach to in most have adopted to as a against as a of the against one case this the court that of the jurisdiction a jurisdiction it be or a of such a a of of in this that the jurisdiction of any other for instance, clauses stating that the of jurisdiction be and be by the law of the State of with venue in were viewed as for of such as or and as to Some also to in the of such when they the partiesâ intent the one for example, the court a forum selection clause in the parties to as the venue for to be exclusive the as a venue interstate or (or to the jurisdiction of more than one By selecting one of in as the exclusive forum for parties able to the of as well as the of jurisdictional However, it is not for parties to such of the U.S. case law and on forum selection clauses on that the effect of exclusive when a party to such an agreement it by litigation elsewhere. other they on the of forum selection in the jurisdiction of a court. such they more than a to jurisdiction and venue in the either to elsewhere. However, forum selection clauses, permissive clauses, may a as in that the parties may a forum that is not otherwise connected with the such the the of the parties also the effect of jurisdiction on a court that would not otherwise have Part that Part turns to the effect of permissive forum selection clauses on the U.S. courts have the discretion to decline jurisdiction on the that litigation in forum would be more or on this may be by the or initiated by the court The to be not only the of the parties, but a of other and as well. effect of a permissive forum selection is to the to the of venue in the on the that court would have more the is the court will the partiesâ forum selection clause in to decline of its The of jurisdiction over the to by the United States state and federal courts have that the of jurisdiction and an and therefore be by a a as a for the of jurisdiction over a The traditional rule, however, was that be given only the of this courts to by Over time, this and courts to such waivers, in the form of forum selection clauses, as this is with to it is to as the and waiver of with this view of the jurisdictional as a courts that jurisdiction on the of is when the forum is otherwise unconnected with the a courts have that the designated forum a to the but these to be The of a forum selection effect on jurisdiction a as well. Over the course of the as the Supreme Courtâs the under it was viewed as to jurisdiction over state a its courts to jurisdiction Some of these to the and state courts to jurisdiction on any not with however, particular of in jurisdiction may be over that use this form of a state court may jurisdiction over a only on one of the If a not as one of the of then the the court is to jurisdiction on that if the litigation is otherwise unconnected with the This itself in federal courts as they the of the state in they the of in to forum selection clauses the of This is with the general that to not the to on it was to jurisdiction over to however, the is that jurisdiction be only when is If that is then a party to a forum selection clause may that its waiver of the court jurisdiction over other if the of the chosen state not as one of the then a forum selection clause should not be is other for the of This is the in A of have under they to jurisdiction on the of a forum selection A of these based on the Model Choice of Forum one section of in the court would jurisdiction but for the of the Others to to the state in that the contract in also a choice of law in of law, and that the a of these one in other of contract would not be to jurisdiction on the court. if the court in the initiates litigation jurisdiction over the and the parties, the may that venue is either or and that the suit in court. The of a forum selection clause may the procedural If a in state a that also the jurisdiction of a federal court in that the a to the case to the federal the to a forum selection clause the state court as a the that agreement a waiver of the this courts have adopted a that such a waiver be and is by the to or by a particular state court as the exclusive forum for A permissive forum selection clause not this and therefore not a to is procedural by a state court a case to a more forum in state (or However, a to a case on the of under the doctrine of forum to this law and have it in procedural Although is the in they the approach that was as a of federal law in v. to on the of forum must be an forum must be is a in of the choice of the of private and public in the case must in of The private of the to be of to the of and the other that into of a case and The the state of the the on in a that is not to the dispute, and the of the court with the law to be have adopted that their courts to jurisdiction over that forum selection clauses courts. of is by clauses the of on the of a court may on that This is when an exclusive forum selection clause is a forum selection clause may as a waiver of a to the of the designated it not the other relevant And permissive forum selection clauses, by not the choice of may be relevant to the The is a permissive forum selection clause should be given in a forum this the chosen to initiate litigation in the designated and the to the in of other such a is to is in the that state courts to this Some courts have that a permissive forum selection clause suit is in the designated and is to under the Bremen that that the clause was as a of contract law, a party to litigation would need to that the designated forum was under that courts the traditional forum but a on the to a forum to it This is on the that the its to to that forum on the of its is one of the most in the Finally, courts to the with for the forum selection clause however, to decline to Although it to be a court that designated in a and exclusive forum selection clause a in a permissive may also forum on its one a court a of contract brought by a against a The contract included an exclusive forum selection clause in of The to the on the of forum The court that the Bremen and that the to that enforcing the clause would be unfair or However, it then on to forum on its that the connection to and that in the the court that it would be courts to the of and the the The initiates litigation other than the designated and the to in of the U.S. law, is given to a choice of and in this of case the general is that will not be the traditional forum in of that courts to a permissive forum selection clause when these however, a in the of a permissive forum selection clause the it may the court to to the choice of it the designated forum as an in the sense that the to jurisdiction the of the forum And it that the its to to the of that these permissive forum selection clauses in not in U.S. federal courts is by a general that the venue of brought in as otherwise by the under a may initiate litigation in a particular for example, if a of the to the A of additional the by a of when venue is when a case is in the of a to a case on this and under the court in a case is either it or it to or in it have additional when venue is but the doctrine of forum under a case will be in of an forum in a state or and under a case will be to a more court the federal a case in v. U.S. District the Supreme Court the these and a forum selection that the initiated litigation in a forum other than that designated in an exclusive forum selection to that the to the suit for venue under and The Court rejected this that the exclusive for venue is or the federal venue in other as as the of venue is or not the parties have in to in a the Court the only to use in a forum selection clause is an to federal court under in the case of an agreement a state or a under forum The Court on to the effect of an exclusive forum selection clause on these of The in to court the U.S. federal and so the Court the that should be a forum selection clause in that the enforcement of forum selection clauses party and of the justice a under to the of the parties should a of the be The Court particular of a forum selection clause for venue when a to suit only in a particular its choice of any other forum contrary to the rule, be given in the of the court should the partiesâ private only as the Court to a when a party suit in a forum in of a forum selection a to the forum will not with it the choice of law have this decision the traditional to exclusive forum selection Although involved a federal the also the to be given a forum selection clause in a to on the of forum in the of a (or the state the federal have not in the they a forum selection clause when forum And have on the that the under forum should be more than under the to of the than to however, the Supreme Court in stating that was a of the law on to state that should to to for forum in clauses to state or a of litigation under its to permissive forum selection clauses. is that the and of the the Court relevant only when an exclusive forum selection clause is on that courts have to the of in permissive forum selection clauses, with Some however, have adopted the of with to the in initiated in the designated forum and in initiated elsewhere. one the to the case out of the forum designated in a permissive forum selection The court that the its to the of that the private in of the in the designated and that would be only the public in of a the to the and interpretation of forum selection clauses on applicable may interstate and international choice of law is therefore an a of that be chosen to such the law of the the law chosen to the either by the parties, in the case of that also a choice of law or of the choice of law rule, in the case of that and in a case in the forum is not the the law of the the United choice of law is a of state than federal law, and state is one relevant to this on a court will forum law to of in the the effect of a permissive forum selection clause is on of jurisdiction and that effect is by forum law. A state court will its when a forum selection effect on its for instance, and its procedural when its effect on a the under a forum selection clause be given a court in that state will that the effect of a forum selection however, a court must the agreement is and it should be as permissive or exclusive. substantive contract law and therefore a lawsuit is in a state other than that law the it is for a of to For example, the forum state have adopted a the of a forum selection the state law the contract have such in to parties with such most with to exclusive forum selection clauses, they permissive as well. a permissive forum selection clause that is under forum law but as against public in the state law the that if the litigation is otherwise unconnected to the the law that the contract to the of would the forum selection and the for jurisdiction over the in the the law of the forum to the of by would the also arise in the effect of a forum selection clause on a to on the of For instance, in a state that would a permissive forum selection clause as a in forum law to the agreement would the procedural to the of a forum selection clause in a of Some contractual for example, based on or duress, or the of a more to the effect of a forum selection for instance, based on a policy of general to private jurisdiction or frequently as and to forum law. one court a general rule, the forum selection clause is and is a procedural that must be in with the law of the forum general a choice of law in the in the based on to substantive of contract However, under current based on such also as procedural and under the law of the Overall, of the case law that the of U.S. courts to questions of in questions of a contractual state courts Some over choice of law and with of contract interpretation as court the of the contract is and if it the contract will be as forum selection clauses when the contract in also a choice of law, courts the chosen law to questions of Others however, particularly but not in the of international these the courts forum law in the of a forum selection forum selection clauses when the contract in not a choice of law, courts more to forum law to questions of will the of the choice of law in an to the law the Some courts this approach by that the choice of court was also a choice of the courts may be This to forum law in the of forum selection clauses may to This is particularly in international the U.S. approach to one a in of permissive than exclusive forum selection clauses in so that of other The jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts is not to under federal is of the parties to a the federal courts also have the to based on state contract law. a federal courts frequently hear out of interstate and international contracts. the of as in v. federal courts in must the substantive law of the state in they that However, they not procedural law. This questions the of the that forum selection clauses federal courts frequently forum selection clauses in the of a to venue to federal court. a of Supreme Court provides a to the the v. the initiated litigation in a court in in of an exclusive forum selection The to the case to the designated The court that on the that the effect of the forum selection clause was by such as a of public the case the Supreme it that the effect of a forum selection clause on the to venue was a of federal procedural law, by a the federal courts were to that law, to the of any otherwise applicable state law. This is a that federal law, in the form of any state law the of a forum selection that the Court in a that the federal would be to the of state law in on jurisdiction as The Supreme Court this approach in the decision the law the of forum selection clauses in the of The case law this federal courts to any state law forum selection the of a to it is law a federal court should in the of a forum selection on this point is federal courts in have that the of a forum selection clause is and should be by the Bremen as a of federal By this a federal court the of courts have the questions of as a of substantive contract This should by choice of law Some courts that to to the law chosen by the However, state federal courts over the choice of law the substantive law of the forum in the of a forum selection Although may have state law the effect of a forum selection it did not state law on of substantive contract law. forum selection clauses may a of questions under that law, their as exclusive or federal courts in state law to approach is not Some federal courts federal in forum selection clauses, the of applicable Others they as to questions interpretation of the on the that enforcement of a forum clause interpretation of the clause it be federal law to interpretation of forum selection clauses federal law on this to these is that a choice of court must in to be as Others that the the effect of forum selection clauses in federal courts is federal questions of a clause is exclusive or be by of law in an otherwise Although courts in the of a the of the state in they in to the substantive law the the by that federal law and the relevant state law in of contract is to a general the of forum selection clauses in U.S. in consumer as well as commercial they will be given is more to the of and that For any particularly for to the of procedural law the U.S. federal is of I to for on a and to for
With widespread smart contract implementation on the horizon, there is much conversation about how to regulate this new technology. Noting the failure of contract law to address the inequities of standardised contracts in the digital environment can help prevent them from being codified further into smart contracts.
The advent of smart contracts presents several problems for the traditional law of contract. One of the most pressing issues is how the forensic process of interpretation needs to change in order to accommodate contracts written in computer code. Not only is the language of smart contracts unlike the human languages with which courts are used to dealing, but its logical architecture also differs. This means that enlisting the services of an expert to provide a literal translation for a judge to interpret is unlikely to be helpful. The development of a âreasonable coderâ test would seem to be a viable means of proceeding. The self-executing nature of smart contracts means that, in the case of executory agreements, rectification may well become a more widely-used remedy.
A new legal field is emerging around blockchain platforms and automated transactions. Understanding the relationships between law, legal enforcement, and these technological systems has become critical for scaling blockchain applications. Because âsmart contractsâ do not themselves constitute agreements, the first necessary âlegalâ development for transacting with these technologies involves linking computational transactions to natural language contracts. Various groups have accordingly begun building libraries of machine readable transaction modules that correspond to natural language contracting elements. In doing so, they are creating the building blocks for ever more complex transactions that will ultimately define the entire envelope of computational legal conduct in these environments, and likely standardise the field. However, also critical to emerging blockchain âlegalitiesâ, is the capacity for dispute resolution and legal enforcement. Beyond the performance of parties, or the quality of goods and services transacted, new mechanisms are also needed to address the performance of the computational transaction systems themselves. These are necessary to address the reality that smart contracts cannot be forced to perform actions beyond the parameters of their coding, even by a judicial order. Legal tools, both technological and institutional, are thus being developed to âsoftenâ the effects of self-executing transactions. In this article we treat these developments as law-making practices that are constitutive of an emerging legal field. Legal engineering exercises of this kind are not novel, and by drawing on historic examples from the common law and international arbitration, we gain insights into the competitive dynamics likely to be shaping legal engagements on the blockchain.
Die Autoren gehen der Frage nach, ob Kryptowährungen als Sachen im Sinne des ZGB aufgefasst und daran namentlich Eigentumsrechte begrßndet werden kÜnnen. Dabei werden zunächst technische Grundlagen der sog. Blockchain-Technologie und der drei nach Markkapitalisierung grÜssten Kryptowährungen Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (Ether, ETH) und Ripple (XRP) dargestellt. Sodann wird untersucht, ob diese Kryptowährungen die Eigenschaften erfßllen, welche fßr die Qualifikation eines Objektes als Sache im Sinne des ZGB vorliegen mßssen, und welches die Folgen einer solchen Qualifikation sind. Im Sinne einer modernen Auslegung des Sachbegriffs schliessen sich die Autoren der Auffassung an, wonach Kryptowährungen grundsätzlich als Sache und damit als Gegenstand des Eigentums zu behandeln sind.
The East Asian cryptocurrency market has burgeoned in the past few years, especially in Japan, China, and South Korea. This means that more and more people are involved in dealings over this novel form of âeconomic valueâ. But, what exactly are people selling and buying? Traditionally, things can be divided into moveables (i.e., tangible things such as books, physical money such as coins or notes, or intangible things such as debts etc.) and immoveables (i.e., land). While the rules pertaining to transactions in such traditional things are well recognised, the same cannot be said of cryptocurrencies. The uncertainty of their characterisation renders it difficult to be confident in transaction finality as a matter of law and also potentially exacerbates dispute resolution. Two issues merit exploration: Is a cryptocurrency a thing as such? If so, can it be the object of a property right? Many other relevant legal issues concerning cryptocurrencies (i.e., how they are protected by law, the legal rules relating to their transfer, or systematic deployment etc.) would hinge upon the above two fundamental issues. Their characterisation may also be significant for conflict of laws characterisation purposes as many of the essential infrastructure for the trading of cryptocurrencies (e.g., mining and exchanges) are located in East Asia. This Chapter aims to survey the major East Asian civil law jurisdictions (i.e. Japan, China, and South Korea) to ascertain how they may address these questions in the light of their respective laws.