3 ms·
(IANAL) Don't contracts have intent of the contract and in some courts the interpretation of the contract is as important as the contract itself. What was meant
by notyourwork 5y ago
(IANAL) Don't contracts have intent of the contract and in some courts the interpretation of the contract is as important as the contract itself. What was meant versus what it literally says so to speak?
- zepto 5y agoWhere is the intent other than in the contract?
- astrange 5y agoGithub comments, tweets saying you didn't mean to get hacked like that. Contracts also need things like consideration and not being "against public policy".
- zepto 5y agoI guess we’re just waiting for a court case to test this. Smart contract code as an exhibit for the defense, and GitHub comments as an exhibit for the plaintiffs. We need a smart court to handle it.
- kittywav 5y agoYes, but a "smart contract" is not a (legal) contract: it's just a fancy name for "a software program that runs on a blockchain". Thus, "smart contracts" behave like software programs (what happens is what is actually written in the "smart contract", not the intent that programmer had when he wrote it, nor the expectation of the user when he interacts with it), and not like legal contracts (where intents and expectations come into play, and courts can be involved for arbitration). Besides, which exact court would have jurisdiction over a smart contract exploit that happens in Ethereum, for example? A court in the country of the person deploying the contract? A court in the country of the person that interacted with the contract and lost their assets? A court in the country of the (unknown) exploiter? A court in the country of the blockchain developers?