4 ms·
They really shouldn't be called contracts at all, since intent ("meeting of the minds") is a fundamental part of contract law. Imagine for example if a mortgag
by missblit 5y ago
They really shouldn't be called contracts at all, since intent ("meeting of the minds") is a fundamental part of contract law.
Imagine for example if a mortgage contract contained some bizarre inscrutable loophole that as-written would give the first 3rd party to notice it total control over over the house.
This would of course be laughed out of court because that part of the contract wouldn't be enforcable under contract law.
"Code is law" is more accurately written as "code is not law at all".
- shkkmo 5y ago> They really shouldn't be called contracts at all, since intent ("meeting of the minds") is a fundamental part of contract law. That's a really good point. They are arguably neither "smart" nor "contracts". Maybe a better term is "automated blockchain agents" or something similar?
- exporectomy 5y agoIt's a perfectly correct term. They're smart because they do some computation, just like a smart speaker or smart phone. They're contracts because they're an agreement between parties. Not legal contracts, but neither are OOP contracts or social contracts or any other kinds of contract.
- jkhdigital 5y agoI guess I can see your point, but I think the usage of "smart" to describe consumer electronics with computational capabilities is a very different usage. Contracts are not "dumb" technologies that are being "enhanced" with computation; contracts and software code are already the same kind of thing. The difference is that contracts-as-code can actually execute contractual obligations rather than just describing them. I wouldn't describe this enhancement as "smart"... perhaps a better term would be "automatic" or "autonomous".