Publication | November 2016
There is much excitement globally about smart contracts and distributed ledger technologies that support them. Properly funded technology vendors and consortia have emerged which are now able to give tangible expression to that sense of excitement in the form of new and innovative smart contract and distributed ledger products and services.
It has become apparent to us, however, that when industry stakeholders (both buyers of the new technologies and vendors) speak of smart contracts, they can mean very different things. As any contracts lawyer will tell you, words matter. Consistency of language is vital if clear lines of communication are to be achieved in a rapidly evolving industry. What do we mean by a smart contract? Is it smart? Is it a contract? Do lawyers and technologists understand each other when they use these terms?
Recognising the imperative for clarity on these issues, R3 and Norton Rose Fulbright offer this White Paper as a step forward in forging a consensus of understanding between industry stakeholders, lawyers and technologists in relation to smart contracts.
The White Paper considers whether a smart contract can constitute a legally binding contract under the law of a number of key jurisdictions. It also examines the practicalities of enforceability and provides some suggestions for dispute resolution within a smart contract context.
On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) published its decision in the landmark case Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd, Maximilian Schrems and intervening parties, Case C-311/18 (known as the Schrems II case).
The COVID-19 outbreak has posed an unprecedented challenge – not just for individuals and governments, but also corporates seeking to navigate unchartered waters in the widespread disruption caused by the global pandemic.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events...
