Smart Contracts – Recognising and Addressing the Risks
4 min to read

Smart Contracts – Recognising and Addressing the Risks

Date
29 December 2021

Smart contracts, where some or all of the contractual obligations are defined in and/or performed automatically by a computer program, are expected to have a significant impact on the way business is done. Whilst already being deployed for relatively straightforward transactions, such as facilitating transfers on cryptocurrency exchanges, with the technology underpinning smart contracts becoming more sophisticated, they are increasingly being considered as an alternative way to do business when compared to the traditional paper contract.

With the advantages they bring to transactions, such as increasing efficiency, security and transparency, smart contracts are seen as a means of automating processes in day-to-day business, from payment of insurance claims, streamlining customer verification processes to managing supply chains. The tamper-resistant, self-executing and self-verifying nature of smart contracts also aims to reduce the scope for disputes.

On 25 November 2021, the Law Commission published its initial advice to the UK Government on smart contracts in which the Law Commission considered, among other things, the form, formation, formality and interpretation of smart contracts. This advice built on the November 2019 guidance of the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) (‘Legal Statement on Crypto Assets and Smart Contracts’) in which the UKJT concluded that, in principle, smart contracts are capable of giving rise to binding legal obligations.

While the Law Commission concluded that the current legal framework is able to facilitate and support the use of smart contracts, it did identify issues that parties should consider in their smart contracts in order to promote certainty and party autonomy. Recommendations included:

  • Making clear the role of code and whether it is intended both to define contractual obligations as well as to perform them, or only to perform them.
  • If terms were expressed in both natural language and code, making clear which was to take precedence in the event of conflict.
  • Allocating risk to provide for (among other things) inaccurate data inputs, bugs and coding errors or external events beyond the parties’ control which might affect performance of the code, such as systems upgrades.
  • Where the contract contained coded terms, providing a natural language explanation of the workings of the code and making clear that such explanations form part of the contract.
  • Pending the outcome of a dispute, providing for a mechanism for suspension of the performance of the code.
  • Including a choice of court and choice of law provision either in a separate natural language agreement (which agreement is expressly said to form part of the contract) or by way of comments in the code.

In the course of its work, the Law Commission highlighted the inherent difficulties in determining the geographical location of acts, actors and intangible objects when dealing with digital assets and smart contracts in the virtual world. This in turn gives rise to conflict of law issues including the law applicable to a dispute and determining which court is to have jurisdiction to hear a dispute. It is clear that digital assets and smart contracts have the potential to give rise to multiple (and possibly inconsistent) assertions of governing law and jurisdiction. To address these issues the Government has asked the Law Commission to set out the current rules on the applicable private international law in the digital context, and if appropriate, to make recommendations for reform to ensure that the law in this area remains relevant and up to date. The Law Commission anticipate that its findings are likely to be published in the first part of 2022 and its report is awaited with great interest.

Jeremy Sharman (Partner), and Prashant Kukadia (Associate) – Bird & Bird, London

For more disputes related content click here to access Disputes+, Bird & Bird’s dispute resolution know how portal

Share
Written by
Jeremy Sharman
Jeremy Sharman
United Kingdom
I am co-head of the Dispute Resolution Group in London, and bring many years' experience of advising clients on a wide range of commercial disputes and risk management issues, often with an international element.
View profile
Prashant Kukadia
Prashant Kukadia
United Kingdom
I am an associate and solicitor-advocate in our Dispute Resolution Group in London, advising clients on contentious matters involving commercial litigation, international arbitration and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), with a particular focus on financial services, energy & utilities and technology & communications.
View profile
Related articles
Technology Projects: Managing the Risks of Innovation and Change Part 3: Contract Reset and Dispute Resolution
Technology Projects: Managing the Risks of Innovation and Change Part 3: Contract Reset and Dispute Resolution
Customers in long-term technology projects can find that while they have been working towards their chosen solution a more advanced, cheaper, or simply more desirable technology has become available....
Digital dispute resolution rules to facilitate rapid and cost-effective resolution of disputes involving novel digital technologies
Digital dispute resolution rules to facilitate rapid and cost-effective resolution of disputes involving novel digital technologies
While some saw the development of products using blockchain technology leading to the demise of disputes, the reality is that disputes in the arena of digital technology are increasing in number. Lawtech’s...
Technology Projects: Managing the Risks of Innovation and Change Part 2: During the Life of the Project
Technology Projects: Managing the Risks of Innovation and Change Part 2: During the Life of the Project
Customers in long-term technology projects can find that while they have been working towards their chosen solution a more advanced, cheaper, or simply more desirable technology has become available....
The UK as a global AI superpower
4 min to read
27 October 2021
The UK as a global AI superpower
On 22 September 2021, during the third day of London Tech Week, the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport published its first National AI Strategy, detailing its 10-year plan to position...
Cookies
We use analytics cookies to help us understand if our website is working well and to learn what content is most useful to visitors. We also use some cookies which are essential to make our website work. You can accept or reject our analytic cookies (including the collection of associated data) and change your mind at any time. Find out more in our Cookie Notice.