Topic: Are Smart Contracts Legally Enforceable? (Read 877 times)
I think some companies are doing crypto audits after completion of their ICO because in order to make the transaction transperancy and should deal with company asset. In order to check the inflow and out flow of the company.
Enforcable where? Contracts have requirements to be able to be enforceable in court. It would really be up to the wording of the contract.
Smart contracts have been very helpful in the corporate field. It made transactions more efficient and have reduced costs and waste for resources.
On top of a lawyer, i think this industry/world needs more accountants too. All of us are trading and making money on crypto along with doing business with it. We should all be equipped.
Yes, get a lawyer in here! I'm interested to see what they have to say about this.
Would a ledger be viable to bring in front of a court?
Would a ledger be viable to bring in front of a court?
Thanks for this. I've passed it onto my legal partner to see what he thinks! It's a really great question.
Sorry for no response, I would like to hear it.
Thanks for this. I've passed it onto my legal partner to see what he thinks! It's a really great question.
Depends on the contract parties. However i do see smart contracts automating part of contracts and possibly holding money for example if something happens then the money will be automatically transferred. Its going to be a while before implementation
smart contract is a misnomer here. its not really a contract moreso than a construct of code. unless the parties interacting with the code have placed contractual obligations on this interaction, this is no different than two people using the same program. you can use legal force however if a party acts in bad faith. the argument surrounding the slock.it breach was that the person interacting with the contract to steal the funds acted in bad faith, as the assumption was that everyone would interact with the contract as intended. this is essentially fraud, but it can be unintentional.
In my opinion smart contracts will be used in many areas in the future, not just people but institutions will also use blockchain and intelligent contracts. Notarials, for example, will use this technology and things will get better through smart contracts. Documentary works, postal works, approvals etc. Many processes that slow down the business like tarihe will interfere. When smart contracts are used, there will be no need to pay a lawyer or big money to make a contract. It is still uncertain what kind of legal process will be followed when there is a problem with smart contracts, the legal process will change from country to country, or countries will form a common principle.
Depends on the contract parties. However i do see smart contracts automating part of contracts and possibly holding money for example if something happens then the money will be automatically transferred. Its going to be a while before implementation
I think anything is legally enforceable in a contract setting. Now with crypto all it takes is for the government to legalize and then you can start suing people lol
I was reading about a token the other day that hope to eliminate this. The nature of smart contracts is to eliminate disputes.
Cybermiles has a really good system outlined for this. They offer escrow with transactions and when conditions aren't met, then nothing happens. Even a step further, they have people in the network called arbiters that are an objective 3rd party that gets paid to solve disputes between two parties.
What i'm saying is that a smart contract only goes through when certain conditions are met. A contract in itself is an agreement of both parties, so yea, I do see it as something that's legal enforceable (but that's assuming the government has legalized it)
Cybermiles has a really good system outlined for this. They offer escrow with transactions and when conditions aren't met, then nothing happens. Even a step further, they have people in the network called arbiters that are an objective 3rd party that gets paid to solve disputes between two parties.
What i'm saying is that a smart contract only goes through when certain conditions are met. A contract in itself is an agreement of both parties, so yea, I do see it as something that's legal enforceable (but that's assuming the government has legalized it)
Thank you both for your thoughts. Both arguments are very valid, and i believe that is why this is something that will eventually have to play out in courts. My personal thought is in the absence of some previously agreed to contract (such as checking "I agree" to a ICO/website terms and conditions), you may run into problems with enforcing a stand-alone smart contract. It is also highly fact-specific - to say smart contracts are all enforceable or not is complicated by various contract law theories, eg, statute of frauds, etc. We shall see, I suppose. Cheers
My take is that they could be. I mean, I would consider them a contract for sure, because it's really just an agreement between two or more parties. My question would be: Why would they need to be legally enforced? Smart contracts are self-executing and self-enforcing. Heck, I think the point is that you won't need any lawyers. Smart contracts take care of themselves so you don't have to. By the time a lawyer can possibly get involved, the smart contract would have already executed and enforced itself, and there should be nothing left to talk about.
Thanks for the info! Curious to see what everyone else thinks. I think they are because they are so precise. Ledgers do not only provide transparency, but also truth.
Jump to: