4 ms·

Courts remain the legal authority, you cannot trade on for other unless provided by law (as in statute), and then it is back again to the courts to interpret. W

Courts remain the legal authority, you cannot trade on for other unless provided by law (as in statute), and then it is back again to the courts to interpret. What did both parties really agree to? IANAL, but intentions and assumptions of the parties can matter - for example, quite a few things you cannot waive in some places, irrespective of what you agree or not.

gknoy 5y ago
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, but I recall that when it comes to contracts, they often allow you to waive protections that the law would normally give you (e.g., specifying that conflict is resolved with arbitration) if both parties agree to it. In the case of smart contracts, where both parties (if I understand it right?) agree that the code defines the contract itself, it seems like saying "... but I made a mistake" (or it has an error) would be very hard to prove. It would be like if you had written in a 3 year no-questions-asked return period into a car contract, rather than a 3 day one, and then tried to litigate when someone actually used that.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  You can amend some legal requirements, but certainly not all. There are many, many restrictions on the types of contracts that are legally enforceable. > but I made a mistake" (or it has an error) would be very hard to prove I don't think it would be that hard to prove that the implementation of a smart contract doesn't match the clear intent. The bigger issue isn't the disputability of the contract, but the difficulty of identifing who you would take to court.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  That is somewhat a US/Common Law perspective, in places with codified civil law might be tougher/different (but again, IANAL - just from experience doing complex contracts)
- ska 5y ago
  > hey often allow you to waive protections ... if both parties agree to it. This is not really generalizable. Arbitration clauses for example waive one method of recourse in favor of another method of recourse, both already accepted by the courts. I expect you couldn't replace that with trial by combat and expect it to hold in court, but you might be able to argue that a different resolution process with historical precedent would hold - at least you could test it in court.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the topic, but there are all sorts of religious courts (at least in the US). Generally they coexist with the secular legal system. https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/08/applying-gods-law-religious-courts-and-mediation-in-the-us/ https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/08/applying-gods-law-religi...
    - ska 5y ago
      Yes that's true, but again it's a case where (a) both parties agreed to (b) a recognized form of resolution, in this case mediation - you can do this with a secular mediator also. In general they don't "coexist" so much as they are subsumed within, as allowable forms of resolution, within prescribed bounds. Important to note that the courts already recognize and/or have precedence for this, and also there are limits to what you can shift here. Finally if the resolution process is not acceptable to one party there are ways to bump it back to the courts. None of this applies to "smart contracts", which aren't contracts in the legals sense anyway. There is no (yet?) agreement by the courts that this is a valid resolution method, and any issues of contractual law brought before a civil court will be resolved by legal principles, not source code. I suspect that the best you could hope for in the current setting is that the source code + associated communications speaks to intent. There's no reason to believe that it is impossible that US courts and/or legislation would at some point give some legal status to a smart contract beyond above, but that's not the case today as far I know.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  There are certain rights you can't waive. But that aside, the issue at hand is what happens when there is a mistake in the smart contract, unintended by either party? Who decides what happens? In this case IRON could even hypothetically claim (true or not) "nope, not a bug, the contract will stay in it's null indeterminate state, and in the meantime we'll be using that USDC as collateral for 30-year US treasury bonds. 2% isn't much, but it sure does add up nicely on $250+ million." Or something like that. I doubt that's how it will go down here, but it will take a human judgement call or agreement-- not a coded contract-- to resolve this.

gknoy 5y ago

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, but I recall that when it comes to contracts, they often allow you to waive protections that the law would normally give you (e.g., specifying that conflict is resolved with arbitration) if both parties agree to it. In the case of smart contracts, where both parties (if I understand it right?) agree that the code defines the contract itself, it seems like saying "... but I made a mistake" (or it has an error) would be very hard to prove. It would be like if you had written in a 3 year no-questions-asked return period into a car contract, rather than a 3 day one, and then tried to litigate when someone actually used that.

shkkmo 5y ago
You can amend some legal requirements, but certainly not all. There are many, many restrictions on the types of contracts that are legally enforceable. > but I made a mistake" (or it has an error) would be very hard to prove I don't think it would be that hard to prove that the implementation of a smart contract doesn't match the clear intent. The bigger issue isn't the disputability of the contract, but the difficulty of identifing who you would take to court.
RandomLensman 5y ago
That is somewhat a US/Common Law perspective, in places with codified civil law might be tougher/different (but again, IANAL - just from experience doing complex contracts)
ska 5y ago
> hey often allow you to waive protections ... if both parties agree to it. This is not really generalizable. Arbitration clauses for example waive one method of recourse in favor of another method of recourse, both already accepted by the courts. I expect you couldn't replace that with trial by combat and expect it to hold in court, but you might be able to argue that a different resolution process with historical precedent would hold - at least you could test it in court.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the topic, but there are all sorts of religious courts (at least in the US). Generally they coexist with the secular legal system. https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/08/applying-gods-law-religious-courts-and-mediation-in-the-us/ https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/08/applying-gods-law-religi...
  - ska 5y ago
    Yes that's true, but again it's a case where (a) both parties agreed to (b) a recognized form of resolution, in this case mediation - you can do this with a secular mediator also. In general they don't "coexist" so much as they are subsumed within, as allowable forms of resolution, within prescribed bounds. Important to note that the courts already recognize and/or have precedence for this, and also there are limits to what you can shift here. Finally if the resolution process is not acceptable to one party there are ways to bump it back to the courts. None of this applies to "smart contracts", which aren't contracts in the legals sense anyway. There is no (yet?) agreement by the courts that this is a valid resolution method, and any issues of contractual law brought before a civil court will be resolved by legal principles, not source code. I suspect that the best you could hope for in the current setting is that the source code + associated communications speaks to intent. There's no reason to believe that it is impossible that US courts and/or legislation would at some point give some legal status to a smart contract beyond above, but that's not the case today as far I know.
ineedasername 5y ago
There are certain rights you can't waive. But that aside, the issue at hand is what happens when there is a mistake in the smart contract, unintended by either party? Who decides what happens? In this case IRON could even hypothetically claim (true or not) "nope, not a bug, the contract will stay in it's null indeterminate state, and in the meantime we'll be using that USDC as collateral for 30-year US treasury bonds. 2% isn't much, but it sure does add up nicely on $250+ million." Or something like that. I doubt that's how it will go down here, but it will take a human judgement call or agreement-- not a coded contract-- to resolve this.