This presentation is about blockchain in the context of ODR. My job is threefold: explain to you what blockchain is, how it operates and why it is relevant for ODR. In the programme it says: âA primer, and discussion, on what is the blockchain and consideration of its potential role in resolving, if not pre-empting, disputes and thus its relevance to ODR.â However, later this afternoon, there is a session on smart contracts. So for now: just the basics, very briefly.
Smart contracts are technically defined as an event-driven programs, with state, that run on a distributed, decentralized, shared and replicated ledger (blockchain) and that can take custody over and transfer assets on the ledger. This new invention enables declarations of will to be expressed as self-executing computer code. The fact that smart contracts can transfer assets without the need for judicial system creates many questions about their place in the civil law. Also, it raises a question about their legality. This paper explores some basic concepts related to smart contracts and tries to set boundaries to their legality in the framework of civil law in scope of form and interpretation.
Lawyers in practice today live in a world of ongoing disruption. As automation, artificial intelligence and blockchain technology assists in reducing the costs of business transactions and increases the reliability of record keeping, the adoption of smart contracts is an opportunity for lawyers to help their clients improve efficiency and to reduce the scope for disputes, and a challenge for lawyers who do not stay abreast of this area.
Legal Services industries are entering a period of major disruption caused by new legal technologies (LawTech), such as artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT) and Blockchain. An area already undergoing major innovation is alternative dispute resolution (Alternative Dispute Resolution (2017) Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_dispute_resolution), especially automated online dispute resolution (Online Dispute Resolution (2017) Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_dispute_resolution; Katsh, E. and Rifkin, J. (2001) Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace. Jossey-Bass Wiley, New Jersey). In terms of LawTech, we broadly divide online dispute resolution into (a) Consumer ODRâuses technology to facilitate the resolution of disputes between ecommerce parties, typically online suppliers and consumers; (b) Judicial ODRâcovers any means of settling âordinaryâ disputes where there is a hearing (using technology) but outside of the courtroom, such as divorce or personal injury cases; and what we refer to as (c) Corporate ODRâthe use of technology to manage the resolution of any contractual disputes that may emerge from major multi-partner projects or financial transactions. This paper focuses on ODR and specifically the future use of automating anticipatory Corporate dispute resolution using AI and blockchain technologies. The paper describes the legal sector, and how it is being radically transformed by computer science.
This article examines contract as a focal point of modern society both in terms of the way that it is used to classify relationships and the way in which it is used to order relationships. I look at how contractual structures and relationships across a variety of speciman scenarios (private sector supply contracts and public service delivery contracts) can be explained using the work of Ian Macneil. He gives us an account of how the socialising contexts of contract relationships evolve and change. Smart contracts offer a new way of constructing relationships. Their advocates suggest that they have the potential to revolutionise the practice of exchange. I consider smart contracts from Macneilâs perspective and work through whether his account of relationality will be able to encompass this new practise.
MarĂa Claudia Solarte-VĂĄsquez, Katrin Nyman-Metcalf
Abstract Smart contracting (SC) is a proactive proposal to operationalize the relational contract theory for the upgrade and improvement of legally relevant exchange. The dynamic institutional environment of the European Union (EU) is a suitable framework for this proposal. SC addresses the interests of the business management, law and information technology practices with a perspective of influence in digital exchange, communication processes and other human and human-machine interactions. This position paper restates the advantages of the concept by highlighting the practical transition pathway SC offers to moderate the growing haste towards the embeddedness of exchange in automated and distributed models. This theoretical contribution supports the systematization of the proactive and legal design research field, and explains the characterization, operationalization and specification of the SC concept.
JIPITEC 8 (2017) 2 - The European Commissionâs approach in the âProposal of Digital Content Directiveâ to regulate digital content contracts based on the object, rather than the type of contract, has led to a situation where a component of a product (the embedded digital content) can end up being subject to a contractual regime different from that applicable to the rest of the âsmartâ product. Different solutions have been proposed to solve this situation: firstly, one could apply goods rules to the whole product, including embedded digital content; alternatively, one could use split rules and subject the hardware of the product to goods rules and embedded digital content to digital content rules. One could even imagine subjecting the whole good to the digital content rules â an approach that would mean a major shift for the existing sales and leasing law. The article discusses the legal consequences of these different options, describes their advantages and disadvantages, and concludes that while there is no ideal solution to be found, the split-approach would be preferable.
Lawyers today live in a world of ongoing disruption. As automation, artificial intelligence and block-chain technology assists in reducing the costs of business transactions and increases the reliability of record keeping, the adoption of smart contracts is an opportunity for lawyers to help their clients improve efficiency and reduce the scope for disputes, and a challenge for lawyers who do not stay abreast of this area.
Growing use of smart contracts - issues to be addressed when contracts can self-execute based on computer code - reliance on blockchain technology - legal issues for smart contracts in Australia - ...
Smart contracts are contracts essentially in form of Computer Codes, where the terms of the contract are enforced by the logic of the programâs execution. They do not require judgement or skill of any specialist. This allows us to form a vastly strong system of checks-and-balances, in a trust-less and decentralised manner. Smart contracts also gain the benefit of global transferability, without sacrificing any local knowledge. Itâs both cost and time effective. Smart Contracts would dramatically reduce the costs of developing, maintain and securing our relationships. Itâs very similar to an online Chessboard game, where the players would design the rules of the game before they are willing to play. And once the rules are agreed on, the Contract would act as a board manager, this allows the parties to move freely but within the rules of the game. Although, enforceability is a challenge to proper working of Smart Contracts, many international conventions can be used to govern the working of such contracts. There exists a clear lack of theoretical framework in this respect. This paper tries to draw out such a theoretical framework by identifying the different modes for regulating and enforcing smart contracts in multiple jurisdictions. Establishment of a legal framework regulating Smart Contracts would be a giant leap in the field of Contractual Laws.
The hype over bitcoins has been compared to the tulip mania in 17th century Netherlands and it has spawned a host of similar cryptocurrencies. As it has gained in popularity, the law has approached the subject warily, mostly from a regulatory perspective. However, no comprehensive consideration of the fundamental nature of a bitcoin ownerâs private law relation to his/her/its bitcoins has been properly conducted. Whether or not bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies achieve mainstream adoption or remain of interest to only a niche audience, this question will inevitably have to be properly addressed. This paper proposes to consider if bitcoins might be recognised as the subject of property rights by Commonwealth courts and if so, what such rights ought to entail. It will begin with a careful consideration of the controversial question of the scope of the law of property before considering bitcoinâs place within the law of property (if any). What is the meaning of property in the common law? What fundamental differences exist between tangible and intangible property? If ownership of bitcoins is worthy of protection, what shape should it take? It suggests that the common law adopts a more expansive view of property than civilian systems and that it is thus able to accommodate bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies within its law of property. However, owing to their unusual nature, legal rights to them must take on a unique and unorthodox form. The code underlying Bitcoin also poses particular challenges to the law which this paper also addresses.
This chapter looks beyond the novelty of self-executing âsmart contractsâ in blockchain networks and explores developments against the background fact that commercial parties have, for centuries, used documentary credit to simulate autonomous performance. Blockchain-based smart contracts and documentary credit share three core functionalities which are essential to any effective autonomous performance, analogue or digitalâthey both (i) act through internalized media of exchange; (ii) operate as closed systems; and (iii) provide means of securing sufficient resources to guarantee contractual performance. Using these three functionalities as a framework, this chapter conducts a comparative analysis of mechanisms for effecting autonomous contractual performance in a commercial setting. From this comparison, a few hypotheses are drawn regarding the potential areas where smart contract technology is more likely to find fruitful application. In particular, the chapter considers potential limitations to applying smart contracts to scenarios beyond digital asset transfers, how dispute resolution mechanisms should be designed to complement (rather impair) the autonomous nature of contractual performance under smart contracts, and potential capital cost implications which might arise in some cases when parties seek to replace human intermediaries with smart contracts.