Blockchain Papers

Joseph M. Green

No abstract is available for this record.

Marta Cervera Martínez

No abstract is available for this record.

Andrew Luesley

No abstract is available for this record.

Jorge Feliú Rey

No abstract is available for this record.

Alfonso Ortega Giménez

No abstract is available for this record.

Yannis Bakos, Hanna Hałaburda

No abstract is available for this record.

Darcy W E Allen, Aaron M. Lane, Marta Poblet

No abstract is available for this record.

Jonathan Rohr

Smart contracts are the new norm, yet state legislatures and courts have not developed set rules and answers to legal disputes that these contracts create. Is traditional contract law sufficient? Or should we create an entirely new legislative or common law scheme to deal with these disputes? The common law has proven to be successful in dealing with new technologies and contracts, particularly because of its flexibility. Although a major overhaul may be in the future, there are still solutions that we can find today with the current legal landscape given the state of contract law and its evolution over time. One particularly analogous body of case law is instructive: the law of the vending machine. In the end, thinking about smart contracts as vending machines may be fruitful for the future of this evolving area of the law.

Farshad Ghodoosi

No abstract is available for this record.

Rory Unsworth

No abstract is available for this record.

Tatiana Cutts

“Smart contracts” 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 – a clever socio–economic 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 ill–formed 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.

Angelo Borselli

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 contract—the insurer’s 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 terms—what 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.

Bernhard Waltl, Christian Sillaber, Ulrich Gallersdörfer, Florian Matthes

No abstract is available for this record.

Antônio Carlos Efing, Adrielly Pinho dos Santos

Smart contracts são criados por meio de códigos computacionais para execução automática de seus termos após a implementação da condição avençada pelas partes. Apresentam-se como fruto da Revolução Tecnológica, especialmente com o advento da internet e ganham relevância no mundo negocial após o surgimento da tecnologia blockchain, a qual permite o armazenamento dos códigos em cadeia de blocos, reduzindo os custos de execução contratual. Assim, os códigos que dão origem aos contratos inteligentes serão autoexecutáveis, autoaplicáveis e obrigatórios, e nada poderá interferir na produção dos efeitos jurídicos avençados pelas partes. São inúmeros desafios jurídicos impostos à realização dos smart contracts no Brasil, principalmente, porque inexistem leis específicas para tutela desta inovação contratual. A pesquisa buscou verificar a existência de obstáculos a execução destes contratos, à luz do princípio da função social dos contratos, por tratar-se norma principiológica cuja aplicação é indispensável a garantia do equilíbrio entre as partes durante todas as fases contratuais. Constatou-se, por meio do método dedutivo e procedimento monográfico, que as próprias características dos smart contracts executados em blockhain, obstam a efetividade das garantias inerentes ao princípio da função social, ante a irreversibilidade dos efeitos jurídicos produzidos, evidenciando, pois, a relevância do tema para a ciência jurídica.

J.G. Allen

Abstract This article explores ‘smart contracts’ from first principles: What they are, whether they are properly called ‘contracts’, and what issues they raise for national contract law. A ‘smart’ 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 lawyers—just 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 ‘wrapped in paper’ and nested in a national legal system. Borrowing from the idiom of computer science, I introduce the term ‘contract stack’ to highlight the complex nature of contracts as legal entities incorporating different ‘layers’, 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 contracts—and writing the languages used to code them.

Silvana Santos Gomes

The ultimate development of a disruptive and innovative contractual form has been imposing new challenges and the need of a proper regulatory framework in the legal field. Smart contracts consist on an internet protocol in which programming language and digital codes are used to input clauses that had already been agreed by the parties and that, upon the fulfillment of a determined condition previously established, shall be automatically self-executed. This new way of creating, transferring and extinguishing patrimonial rights and duties has been playing a major role in the context of the Creative Economy, in which intellectual capital, agility and the automatization of operations constitute fundamental factors. In order to investigate the characteristics and possibilities of adopting smart contracts under the perspective of the Brazilian legal order and its insertion in the Creative Economy, this paper has applied the theoretical and methodological framework of the Economic Analysis of Law so as to pursue the analytical exercise that it is committed to perform.

Hannah L. Buxbaum

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 approach—relevant in connection with permissive as well as exclusive clauses—appear in the case law as well. Some courts rejected forum selection clauses out of suspicion that the parties’ intent in selecting a particular forum was to circumvent otherwise applicable substantive policies. Others worried that permitting parties to choose their forum would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute” by highlighting considerations such as the relative intelligence or impartiality of particular judges.4 Overall, the sense was that “[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.”5 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 Conference’s 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 “unless it is unfair or unreasonable.9 The real turning point in U.S. doctrine was the Supreme Court’s 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 Court’s 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 Court’s 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 parties’ 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 parties’ 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 parties’ 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 Court’s 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 parties’ 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

Prateek Goorha

I propose a method for introducing ‘context’ within the contractual environment based on a simple and intuitive application of control theory. The approach permits looking at several interesting practical features of contracts, be they incomplete, complete or smart, within a single framework. I define a contextual environment with the help of an interaction between three distinct spaces: a market-based contractual space framed within a formal institutional space and an even larger cultural space. Each space is characterized by a governing law built on a selection of control mechanisms that differ in their approach as well as their reliance on information generated from feedback mechanisms. I suggest how these governing laws tie the contextual spaces together and present some ideas on how they evolve through their interactions with other spaces. JEL: D20, D86, P50, Z10

Carlos Enrique Tur Faúndez

La cadena de bloques y los smart contracts se hallan hoy en boca de todos y, en nuestra opinion, son muchos los motivos para ello por cuanto constituyen, ciertamente, una tecnologia disruptiva y con un extraordinario potencial. Sin embargo, se hace necesario conocer en profundidad sus fundamentos tecnologicos, su verdadero alcance y su posible integracion en el mundo juridico, para lo que es preciso poner los pies en el suelo y aceptar de una vez por todas que, en este asunto, el Derecho y la Informatica estan condenados a entenderse.Los smart contracts son codigo y nada mas que codigo, no obstante lo cual, la mayoria de ellos son creados con la finalidad de ejecutar automaticamente los acuerdos alcanzados por las partes. Para ello, se requiere una nueva categoria, el contrato legal inteligente, que existira unica y exclusivamente en el instante en que las partes acepten los terminos y condiciones previamente acordados.El contrato legal inteligente se construye sobre la estructura de un smart contract subyacente, pero su alcance va mucho mas alla, por lo que es imprescindible el analisis de su formacion y de los elementos que imperativamente lo componen. El incumplimiento de los requisitos legales conducira, inevitablemente, a los smart contracts ante los organos jurisdiccionales, e irrogara perjuicios absolutamente innecesarios.

Hongjiang Zhao, Cephas Paa Kwasi Coffie

No abstract is available for this record.

Jeffrey M. Lipshaw

“Smart contracts” are a hot topic. Presently, smart contracts are mostly evidence of property, like cryptocurrencies or mortgages, created and/or transferred using blockchain technology. This is an exploration of the theoretical possibilities of artificial intelligence in a far broader range of complex and heretofore negotiated transactions that occur over time. My goal is to understand what it means to make a contract smarter, i.e. to delegate more and more of the creation, performance, and disposition of legally binding transactions to machine thinking. Moreover, I want to do so from the perspective of one who is neither a true believer in the purported technological singularity to come nor a digital Luddite.

Theodoros Stylianou

No abstract is available for this record.

Charlotte R. Young

Society is progressing at a rapid pace. As math and science evolve, new technologies begin to utilize these advances and create something novel. These technological changes are revolutionizing not only the science-oriented industries, but also the humanities. One such example falls within the legal arena. More specifically, the exciting advent of smart contracts and their use of technological changes are altering the way law is processed and practiced. However, as is often the case, new technological innovations spur certain growing pains. The implementation of smart contracts is proving no different. Some view the smart contract as the start of a more ideal society. With the aid of smart contracts and blockchain technology, machines can finally be equipped to fulfill some of the most basic human functions. Not only would business transactions always occur in a timely, seamless, and cost-effective manner, but also more mundane life tasks, such as ordering laundry detergent, could soon be done via smart contract technology. As exciting as these changes may be, smart contracts and the blockchain technology behind them are still immature. Before this legal phenomenon is widely accepted, there needs to be more advancement in not only the code that creates the technology, but also in the law and its regulations. As it stands today, smart contracts are most likely to be accepted only in part, and heavily tailored to meet each contracting party’s needs. This Note will start by giving an overview of the technology needed to implement smart contracts—blockchain technology—and an explanation of how smart contracts fit within the framework of a blockchain. Next, this Note will discuss some of the major issues smart contracts face. Such issues include: the need to translate natural language into computer code, the traditional concept of contracting in conjunction with the effect of smart contracts on traditional legal notions, and reoccurring enforcement issues. After discussing smart contracts and the current issues barring wide-spread acceptance, this Note will explore the future of smart contracts in the legal arena by analogizing such an electronic contracting change to the now-widely accepted electronic clickwrap agreements. Additionally, this Note will explore recently enacted state statutes that create favorable legal conditions for smart contracts and what impact, if any, these statutes may have upon federal legislation. Furthermore, this Note will analyze the lack of and potential need for regulations regarding smart contracts. In an attempt to make smart contracts acceptable, this Note will suggest future regulations focus on two components of smart contracts. As it will be discussed, regulations should require smart contracts to utilize a permissioned ledger and focus on ensuring the legal requirement of mutuality between the two contracting parties. Lastly, this Note will conclude that although the publicity surrounding smart contracts is exciting and innovative, this form of contracting is likely to remain in a controlled business environment with implementation under select circumstances.

Evgeniy Shishkin

We describe our efforts towards building a tool that automatically verify high-level functional properties of Ethereum smart contracts against its formal specification that can be given using four different methods: an invariant over contract state or three different types of trace properties. A model of runtime system, the source code of smart contract together with its specification is translated into SMT-solver formula and checked for counter example. We tested the method on simplified version of notorious TheDAO smart-contract, called MiniDAO. Our proof-of-concept tool was able to find a functional property violation of MiniDAO in just several seconds. We believe that the proposed method is indeed useful and deserves deeper investigation.