‘InPerpetuity{Challenging Misperceptions of the Term “Smart Contract”}

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

doi:https://doi.org/

Journal article 14 views

‘InPerpetuity{Challenging Misperceptions of the Term “Smart Contract”}

Monica L Vessio, Arnold Beckmann

, Matt Roach

, Severine Saintier, Rhys Clements, Anton Setzer

European Journal of Law and Technology

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

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 has endeavoured to add the word ‘legal’ to ‘smart contract’. No relief is found in the computer coding world, where ‘smart contract�...

Full description

Published in:	European Journal of Law and Technology
Published:	2024
URI:	https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa68617

first_indexed	2025-01-09T20:33:59Z
last_indexed	2025-01-09T20:33:59Z
id	cronfa68617
recordtype	SURis
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2024-12-21T11:49:18.4179908</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>68617</id><entry>2024-12-20</entry><title>‘InPerpetuity{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>2024-12-20</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 has endeavoured to add 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 ‘smart contract’ and ‘smart legal contract’(and their implications). From these findings, this paper recognises the inappropriateness of the use of the single term ‘smart contract’ for the many diverseiterations as used by computer scientists; and the unsuitability of the word ‘contract’ as part of the term ‘smart contract’ by computer scientists because of the term’s legal import. The redundancy of the term ‘smart legal contract’ is established, and in conclusion a definition of ‘smart contract’ which only considers universal, future-proof 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/><journalNumber/><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher/><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><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>WEFO ERDF</funders><projectreference/><lastEdited>2024-12-21T11:49:18.4179908</lastEdited><Created>2024-12-20T14:09:51.2969561</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>Severine</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/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling	2024-12-21T11:49:18.4179908 v2 68617 2024-12-20 ‘InPerpetuity{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 2024-12-20 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 has endeavoured to add 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 ‘smart contract’ and ‘smart legal contract’(and their implications). From these findings, this paper recognises the inappropriateness of the use of the single term ‘smart contract’ for the many diverseiterations as used by computer scientists; and the unsuitability of the word ‘contract’ as part of the term ‘smart contract’ by computer scientists because of the term’s legal import. The redundancy of the term ‘smart legal contract’ is established, and in conclusion a definition of ‘smart contract’ which only considers universal, future-proof 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 14 9 2024 2024-09-14 COLLEGE NANME Mathematics and Computer Science School COLLEGE CODE MACS Swansea University WEFO ERDF 2024-12-21T11:49:18.4179908 2024-12-20T14:09:51.2969561 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 Severine Saintier 4 Rhys Clements 5 Anton Setzer 0000-0001-5322-6060 6
title	‘InPerpetuity{Challenging Misperceptions of the Term “Smart Contract”}
spellingShingle	‘InPerpetuity{Challenging Misperceptions of the Term “Smart Contract”} Arnold Beckmann Matt Roach Rhys Clements Anton Setzer
title_short	‘InPerpetuity{Challenging Misperceptions of the Term “Smart Contract”}
title_full	‘InPerpetuity{Challenging Misperceptions of the Term “Smart Contract”}
title_fullStr	‘InPerpetuity{Challenging Misperceptions of the Term “Smart Contract”}
title_full_unstemmed	‘InPerpetuity{Challenging Misperceptions of the Term “Smart Contract”}
title_sort	‘InPerpetuity{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 Severine Saintier Rhys Clements Anton Setzer
format	Journal article
container_title	European Journal of Law and Technology
publishDate	2024
institution	Swansea University
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	0
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 has endeavoured to add 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 ‘smart contract’ and ‘smart legal contract’(and their implications). From these findings, this paper recognises the inappropriateness of the use of the single term ‘smart contract’ for the many diverseiterations as used by computer scientists; and the unsuitability of the word ‘contract’ as part of the term ‘smart contract’ by computer scientists because of the term’s legal import. The redundancy of the term ‘smart legal contract’ is established, and in conclusion a definition of ‘smart contract’ which only considers universal, future-proof 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	2024-09-14T20:50:19Z
_version_	1821440075872862208
score	11.047609

‘InPerpetuity{Challenging Misperceptions of the Term “Smart Contract”}

Similar Items