4 ms·

What happens when a judge interprets the spirit of the T&C and not the letter? Is that something that a judge has the right to do? I understand that this would

What happens when a judge interprets the spirit of the T&C and not the letter? Is that something that a judge has the right to do? I understand that this would most likely kill "smart contracts" (since they can just be overridden by existing legal systems...), but wouldn't it be a possible path to reclaiming the assets?

yaur 10y ago
If smart contracts are dead are there any assets to reclaim?
- crazypyro 10y ago
  Fair point. I think the legal situation is much more complex than the "The Attacker" is trying to portray it though.
Joeboy 10y ago
> this would most likely kill "smart contracts" (since they can just be overridden by existing legal systems...) I wasn't sure how this was supposed to work. If the success of smart contracts requires them to be independent from the law... that just isn't going to happen. But in theory, they still might make sense as a low-cost, automated way of doing business, for the majority of cases where transactions go more or less as planned? (I am an ethereum-skeptic trying to keep an open mind, btw)
grovulent 10y ago
Indeed - what happens when the contract itself states explicitly that there is NO intent above and beyond the code? Contract law exists above and beyond what the DAO t&c states - and it varies from country to country. In Australia for instance - the high court apparently keeps changing its mind about whether or not ambiguity in a contract is needed before context and intent can be considered. Earlier on they strictly claimed that ambiguity must be present, later decisions seemed to imply that there didn't need to be any ambiguity in the text of a contract for the court to consider the context surrounding the creation of the contract. So who knows - under Australian law what the outcome would be - the DAO folk could try to argue that even though the t&c effectively waives any possibility of ambiguity, still their intent, and the context of what they were trying to achieve with the DAO should be taken into consideration. But this won't be of use if the high court remains strict about requiring ambiguity. And that's just one country. http://www.corrs.com.au/publications/corrs-in-brief/uncertainty-about-ambiguity-the-approach-to-contractual-construction-remains-in-dispute-across-australia/ http://www.corrs.com.au/publications/corrs-in-brief/uncertai... The DAO folks are in deep shit methinks. I think they have to hard fork. Because if they don't - they may find themselves fighting lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions - with the aggrieved parties claiming their own personal contractual intent was violated. If they do - it's only one law suit they will have to fight at most.

yaur 10y ago

If smart contracts are dead are there any assets to reclaim?

crazypyro 10y ago
Fair point. I think the legal situation is much more complex than the "The Attacker" is trying to portray it though.

Joeboy 10y ago

> this would most likely kill "smart contracts" (since they can just be overridden by existing legal systems...) I wasn't sure how this was supposed to work. If the success of smart contracts requires them to be independent from the law... that just isn't going to happen. But in theory, they still might make sense as a low-cost, automated way of doing business, for the majority of cases where transactions go more or less as planned? (I am an ethereum-skeptic trying to keep an open mind, btw)

grovulent 10y ago

Indeed - what happens when the contract itself states explicitly that there is NO intent above and beyond the code? Contract law exists above and beyond what the DAO t&c states - and it varies from country to country. In Australia for instance - the high court apparently keeps changing its mind about whether or not ambiguity in a contract is needed before context and intent can be considered. Earlier on they strictly claimed that ambiguity must be present, later decisions seemed to imply that there didn't need to be any ambiguity in the text of a contract for the court to consider the context surrounding the creation of the contract. So who knows - under Australian law what the outcome would be - the DAO folk could try to argue that even though the t&c effectively waives any possibility of ambiguity, still their intent, and the context of what they were trying to achieve with the DAO should be taken into consideration. But this won't be of use if the high court remains strict about requiring ambiguity. And that's just one country. http://www.corrs.com.au/publications/corrs-in-brief/uncertainty-about-ambiguity-the-approach-to-contractual-construction-remains-in-dispute-across-australia/ http://www.corrs.com.au/publications/corrs-in-brief/uncertai... The DAO folks are in deep shit methinks. I think they have to hard fork. Because if they don't - they may find themselves fighting lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions - with the aggrieved parties claiming their own personal contractual intent was violated. If they do - it's only one law suit they will have to fight at most.