In Perpetuity {Challenging Misperceptions of the Term ‘Smart Contract’}

Vessio, Monica L; Beckmann, Arnold; Roach, Matt; Saintier, Séverine; Clements, Rhys; Setzer, Anton

doi:https://doi.org/

Journal article 90 views

In Perpetuity {Challenging Misperceptions of the Term ‘Smart Contract’}

Monica L Vessio, Arnold Beckmann

, Matt Roach

, Séverine Saintier, Rhys Clements, Anton Setzer

European Journal of Law and Technology, Volume: 15, Issue: 2

Swansea University Authors: Arnold Beckmann , Matt Roach , Rhys Clements, Anton Setzer

PDF | Version of Record

Article freely available from publisher's site.
Download (1.09MB)

Check full text

Abstract

In law, the term ‘smart contract’ has been used loosely with no one definition winning out. In an attempt to ameliorate this, the Law Commission of England and Wales, have added the word ‘legal’ to smart contract. No relief is found in the computer coding world, where ‘smart contract' is used t...

Full description

Published in:	European Journal of Law and Technology
ISSN:	2042-115X
Published:	2024
Online Access:	Check full text
URI:	https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa67545
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

first_indexed	2024-09-03T09:46:18Z
last_indexed	2024-09-03T09:46:18Z
id	cronfa67545
recordtype	SURis
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rfc1807 xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>67545</id><entry>2024-09-03</entry><title>In Perpetuity {Challenging Misperceptions of the Term ‘Smart Contract’}</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>1439ebd690110a50a797b7ec78cca600</sid><ORCID>0000-0001-7958-5790</ORCID><firstname>Arnold</firstname><surname>Beckmann</surname><name>Arnold Beckmann</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author><author><sid>9722c301d5bbdc96e967cdc629290fec</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-1486-5537</ORCID><firstname>Matt</firstname><surname>Roach</surname><name>Matt Roach</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author><author><sid>0c3f0f35c1f6a1a5064b61b018515b07</sid><firstname>Rhys</firstname><surname>Clements</surname><name>Rhys Clements</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author><author><sid>5f7695285397f46d121207120247c2ae</sid><ORCID>0000-0001-5322-6060</ORCID><firstname>Anton</firstname><surname>Setzer</surname><name>Anton Setzer</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2024-09-03</date><deptcode>MACS</deptcode><abstract>In law, the term ‘smart contract’ has been used loosely with no one definition winning out. In an attempt to ameliorate this, the Law Commission of England and Wales, have added the word ‘legal’ to smart contract. No relief is found in the computer coding world, where ‘smart contract' is used to indicate not a single but several forms of computer codes that do not involve (necessarily) two parties. Through a sample smart contract use case, this paper identifies more than six such coding concepts and constructs which have been corroborated by the results of trend data analysis. Turning to the public, statistics gathered show a very limited understanding of the terms (and their implications) - ‘smart contract’ and ‘smart legal contract’. From these findings, this paper recognizes the inappropriateness of the use of the single term ‘smart contract’ for the many diverse iterations as used by computer scientists; theunsuitability of the use of the word ‘contract’ as part of the term ‘smart contract’ by computer scientists because of this term’s legal import; and it establishes the redundancy of the term ‘smart legal contract’. In conclusion a definition of ‘smart contract’ which only considers universal characteristics is proposed. In this we disagree with the definitions offered by the Law Commission. The definition we have proffered actively contemplates the legacy use of the term in both law and technology and is broad enough to be sector and future adaptable and technology agnostic.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>European Journal of Law and Technology</journal><volume>15</volume><journalNumber>2</journalNumber><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher/><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic>2042-115X</issnElectronic><keywords>Smart contract, contracts, code, smart legal contracts, digital contracts, static contracts.</keywords><publishedDay>14</publishedDay><publishedMonth>9</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2024</publishedYear><publishedDate>2024-09-14</publishedDate><doi/><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Mathematics and Computer Science School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>MACS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><funders/><projectreference/><lastEdited>2024-10-28T14:01:19.4177290</lastEdited><Created>2024-09-03T10:42:22.0143946</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Science and Engineering</level><level id="2">School of Mathematics and Computer Science - Computer Science</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Monica L</firstname><surname>Vessio</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Arnold</firstname><surname>Beckmann</surname><orcid>0000-0001-7958-5790</orcid><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Matt</firstname><surname>Roach</surname><orcid>0000-0002-1486-5537</orcid><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Séverine</firstname><surname>Saintier</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Rhys</firstname><surname>Clements</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>Anton</firstname><surname>Setzer</surname><orcid>0000-0001-5322-6060</orcid><order>6</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>67545__32749__a071007a034547f4a65559519a4fcf2e.pdf</filename><originalFilename>67545.VoR.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2024-10-28T13:46:23.3647318</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>1143946</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>Article freely available from publisher's site.</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling	v2 67545 2024-09-03 In Perpetuity {Challenging Misperceptions of the Term ‘Smart Contract’} 1439ebd690110a50a797b7ec78cca600 0000-0001-7958-5790 Arnold Beckmann Arnold Beckmann true false 9722c301d5bbdc96e967cdc629290fec 0000-0002-1486-5537 Matt Roach Matt Roach true false 0c3f0f35c1f6a1a5064b61b018515b07 Rhys Clements Rhys Clements true false 5f7695285397f46d121207120247c2ae 0000-0001-5322-6060 Anton Setzer Anton Setzer true false 2024-09-03 MACS In law, the term ‘smart contract’ has been used loosely with no one definition winning out. In an attempt to ameliorate this, the Law Commission of England and Wales, have added the word ‘legal’ to smart contract. No relief is found in the computer coding world, where ‘smart contract' is used to indicate not a single but several forms of computer codes that do not involve (necessarily) two parties. Through a sample smart contract use case, this paper identifies more than six such coding concepts and constructs which have been corroborated by the results of trend data analysis. Turning to the public, statistics gathered show a very limited understanding of the terms (and their implications) - ‘smart contract’ and ‘smart legal contract’. From these findings, this paper recognizes the inappropriateness of the use of the single term ‘smart contract’ for the many diverse iterations as used by computer scientists; theunsuitability of the use of the word ‘contract’ as part of the term ‘smart contract’ by computer scientists because of this term’s legal import; and it establishes the redundancy of the term ‘smart legal contract’. In conclusion a definition of ‘smart contract’ which only considers universal characteristics is proposed. In this we disagree with the definitions offered by the Law Commission. The definition we have proffered actively contemplates the legacy use of the term in both law and technology and is broad enough to be sector and future adaptable and technology agnostic. Journal Article European Journal of Law and Technology 15 2 2042-115X Smart contract, contracts, code, smart legal contracts, digital contracts, static contracts. 14 9 2024 2024-09-14 COLLEGE NANME Mathematics and Computer Science School COLLEGE CODE MACS Swansea University 2024-10-28T14:01:19.4177290 2024-09-03T10:42:22.0143946 Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Mathematics and Computer Science - Computer Science Monica L Vessio 1 Arnold Beckmann 0000-0001-7958-5790 2 Matt Roach 0000-0002-1486-5537 3 Séverine Saintier 4 Rhys Clements 5 Anton Setzer 0000-0001-5322-6060 6 67545__32749__a071007a034547f4a65559519a4fcf2e.pdf 67545.VoR.pdf 2024-10-28T13:46:23.3647318 Output 1143946 application/pdf Version of Record true Article freely available from publisher's site. true eng
title	In Perpetuity {Challenging Misperceptions of the Term ‘Smart Contract’}
spellingShingle	In Perpetuity {Challenging Misperceptions of the Term ‘Smart Contract’} Arnold Beckmann Matt Roach Rhys Clements Anton Setzer
title_short	In Perpetuity {Challenging Misperceptions of the Term ‘Smart Contract’}
title_full	In Perpetuity {Challenging Misperceptions of the Term ‘Smart Contract’}
title_fullStr	In Perpetuity {Challenging Misperceptions of the Term ‘Smart Contract’}
title_full_unstemmed	In Perpetuity {Challenging Misperceptions of the Term ‘Smart Contract’}
title_sort	In Perpetuity {Challenging Misperceptions of the Term ‘Smart Contract’}
author_id_str_mv	1439ebd690110a50a797b7ec78cca600 9722c301d5bbdc96e967cdc629290fec 0c3f0f35c1f6a1a5064b61b018515b07 5f7695285397f46d121207120247c2ae
author_id_fullname_str_mv	1439ebd690110a50a797b7ec78cca600_*_Arnold Beckmann 9722c301d5bbdc96e967cdc629290fec__Matt Roach 0c3f0f35c1f6a1a5064b61b018515b07__Rhys Clements 5f7695285397f46d121207120247c2ae_*_Anton Setzer
author	Arnold Beckmann Matt Roach Rhys Clements Anton Setzer
author2	Monica L Vessio Arnold Beckmann Matt Roach Séverine Saintier Rhys Clements Anton Setzer
format	Journal article
container_title	European Journal of Law and Technology
container_volume	15
container_issue	2
publishDate	2024
institution	Swansea University
issn	2042-115X
college_str	Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id	facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_top_title	Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchy_parent_id	facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_parent_title	Faculty of Science and Engineering
department_str	School of Mathematics and Computer Science - Computer Science{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Science and Engineering{{{_:::_}}}School of Mathematics and Computer Science - Computer Science
document_store_str	1
active_str	0
description	In law, the term ‘smart contract’ has been used loosely with no one definition winning out. In an attempt to ameliorate this, the Law Commission of England and Wales, have added the word ‘legal’ to smart contract. No relief is found in the computer coding world, where ‘smart contract' is used to indicate not a single but several forms of computer codes that do not involve (necessarily) two parties. Through a sample smart contract use case, this paper identifies more than six such coding concepts and constructs which have been corroborated by the results of trend data analysis. Turning to the public, statistics gathered show a very limited understanding of the terms (and their implications) - ‘smart contract’ and ‘smart legal contract’. From these findings, this paper recognizes the inappropriateness of the use of the single term ‘smart contract’ for the many diverse iterations as used by computer scientists; theunsuitability of the use of the word ‘contract’ as part of the term ‘smart contract’ by computer scientists because of this term’s legal import; and it establishes the redundancy of the term ‘smart legal contract’. In conclusion a definition of ‘smart contract’ which only considers universal characteristics is proposed. In this we disagree with the definitions offered by the Law Commission. The definition we have proffered actively contemplates the legacy use of the term in both law and technology and is broad enough to be sector and future adaptable and technology agnostic.
published_date	2024-09-14T14:01:17Z
_version_	1814166584581685248
score	11.036706

In Perpetuity {Challenging Misperceptions of the Term ‘Smart Contract’}

Similar Items