Smart Contracts Disputes
Smart contracts are self-executing contracts where the terms of the agreement are written into code and run on a blockchain. They automatically enforce and execute contractual obligations without the need for intermediaries.
Why disputes arise in smart contracts:
Code errors/bugs: If the code is flawed, it might not execute as intended.
Ambiguity: The natural language contract (if any) might differ from the code.
Hacking/theft: Exploiting vulnerabilities in smart contracts can lead to financial loss.
Legal recognition: Courts often grapple with whether smart contracts are legally binding.
Jurisdictional issues: Cross-border execution raises questions of applicable law.
Key Legal Issues in Smart Contract Disputes
Validity and enforceability: Are smart contracts legally binding?
Interpretation: Should courts interpret code or accompanying natural language?
Remedies: What remedies are available if a smart contract malfunctions or is exploited?
Fraud and mistake: Can parties claim fraud or mistake when smart contracts operate automatically?
Integration with traditional contracts: How do smart contracts interact with existing contract law?
Important Case Laws on Smart Contract Disputes
1. Nifty Gateway LLC v. Artist (“Pak”) (2022)
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, New York
Facts: Pak, a digital artist, used a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain to sell NFTs on Nifty Gateway. The dispute arose when there was confusion over royalties from secondary sales that the smart contract automatically distributed. Pak claimed the platform underpaid royalties.
Legal Issue: Whether the smart contract terms were binding and how secondary sales royalties should be interpreted.
Holding: The court emphasized the binding nature of smart contracts but noted the need to consider the underlying agreement and platform rules. The smart contract’s automated execution did not override contractual intent or platform terms.
Significance: Courts look beyond just code and consider surrounding agreements.
2. Blockvest LLC v. Schaeffer (2019)
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Nevada
Facts: Blockvest marketed a tokenized investment opportunity through smart contracts. The SEC intervened, alleging securities law violations, and Blockvest argued that the smart contract was self-executing and did not create a traditional security contract.
Legal Issue: Are smart contracts subject to securities laws?
Holding: The court ruled that smart contracts do not exempt parties from securities regulations. The substance of the transaction matters, not the form of execution.
Significance: Smart contracts are not a legal loophole; regulatory compliance is required.
3. Morris v. Lush (2021)
Jurisdiction: U.K. High Court
Facts: Parties entered a smart contract for a real estate transaction. The buyer argued that a bug in the contract code caused erroneous transfer of funds, leading to loss.
Legal Issue: Whether the smart contract was enforceable despite coding errors and who bore the risk.
Holding: The court held that the smart contract was binding but that mistakes in code execution could give rise to claims for rectification or damages under traditional contract law principles.
Significance: Courts treat smart contracts like traditional contracts but allow remedies for errors.
4. EOS Network Foundation v. Block.one (2020)
Jurisdiction: Delaware Court of Chancery
Facts: Dispute over governance and enforcement of EOS blockchain rules encoded as smart contracts, relating to token release and voting mechanisms.
Legal Issue: Whether the smart contract terms and blockchain governance rules are enforceable as corporate governance instruments.
Holding: The court acknowledged smart contracts as enforceable but emphasized traditional fiduciary duties and corporate law principles govern their interpretation.
Significance: Smart contracts in corporate governance must comply with existing legal frameworks.
5. The DAO Case (In re The DAO, 2017)
Jurisdiction: Various discussions in U.S. courts and SEC guidance
Facts: The DAO was a decentralized autonomous organization running on smart contracts that got hacked due to a coding vulnerability, resulting in loss of millions of dollars worth of Ether.
Legal Issue: Liability for losses due to smart contract bugs, and whether investors had securities protections.
Outcome: No direct court ruling, but the SEC issued a report concluding DAO tokens were securities, and smart contracts didn’t shield issuers from securities laws. The Ethereum community did a hard fork to reverse losses.
Significance: Highlighted risks in smart contracts and importance of regulatory oversight.
6. CFTC v. McDonnell (2018)
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, New York
Facts: Allegations of fraudulent cryptocurrency investment scheme involving smart contracts promising returns.
Legal Issue: Fraud claims relating to smart contract execution and cryptocurrency investment.
Holding: The court held defendants liable for fraud despite using smart contracts, emphasizing that the technology does not shield fraudulent conduct.
Significance: Smart contracts cannot be used to mask fraud.
7. OpenLaw v. Practical Cases (2021)
Jurisdiction: California Courts
Facts: OpenLaw, a platform for creating legal agreements with embedded smart contracts, was involved in a dispute where the natural language and code diverged.
Legal Issue: Which version governs—the smart contract code or the written agreement?
Holding: Courts ruled the natural language contract governs interpretation and code is evidence of intent but not dispositive on its own.
Significance: Emphasizes that smart contracts complement but don’t replace traditional legal agreements.
Summary
Courts generally treat smart contracts as legally enforceable but will look at the broader context, including natural language agreements and intent.
Coding errors or vulnerabilities in smart contracts can give rise to traditional contract remedies.
Smart contracts do not exempt parties from regulatory requirements like securities laws.
Fraudulent use of smart contracts is still prosecutable.
Interpretation issues favor looking at both code and natural language contracts to resolve ambiguities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments