3 ms·
Again, you're all using the word "contract" wrong. More precisely, you are using it in a way that is fundamentally different from how the law uses it, and I be
by jrm4 5y ago
Again, you're all using the word "contract" wrong.
More precisely, you are using it in a way that is fundamentally different from how the law uses it, and I believe that doing so is harmful (i.e. this isn't about being a language prescriptivist, it's about confusing people in ways that will likely mess them up.)
In the vending machine hypothetical, the part that people are calling the "smart contract" is the physical workings of the machine itself; it detects the presence of a bill, it takes it, gears turn, and a soda comes out.
There is nothing here about obligations, promises, who is owed what. It's just a machine. And thus should not be called a contract. The contract is the legal obligations that are carried with it.
- myWindoonn 5y agoI strongly recommend that you read "Smart Contracts and Traditional Contract Law, or: The Law of the Vending Machine" by Rohr in 2019, published in a reputable law-review journal [1]. If literally nothing else, it contains the quote, "smart contracts are not necessarily legal contracts," which appears to be the point that you want made. But also, on p9, the author points out that "it may be silly to think of a vending machine in this way, but when, for example, somebody is sickened by a defective can of Coke and issues arise relating to warranties that apply to the sales of goods, the legal status of those ubiquitous, small-potatoes transactions matters." The article goes on to critique the "just a machine[,] and thus not should be called a contract" view which you espouse. [1] https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4025&context=clevstlrev https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...