Sure they are, the original contract was that the blockchain asset was authoritative. If you buy that asset then you obviously share that view. If the asset has limited transferability, well you agreed to that. It was in the code for you to test for, if not read.

Engaging with a smart contract is not an action that binds you to a legal contract.

Nothing about the first sale contract can be legally binding on the person who buys the NFT when resold.

You can end up with an NFT without having been party to any legal agreement whatsoever.

No, but purchasing it effectively will. If I create a software-license rental NFT which you have to refill periodically, you won't be able to force me to provide full coverage to that software. Even if you purchased it from someone else without being told the rules - the NFT encodes them and you'd be expected to read it and know the limitations on your claim.

If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially.

If you buy a second-hand concert-ticket NFT the requirements of attendance will still need to be met before you can use it.

> If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially.

I don't believe this statement to be accurate.

I don't think it's plausibly true now because of the complexity of that contract and the difficulty in expressing it, jurisdictional issues, etc.

But if all that was handled and it was considered binging between you and the first guy then I don't think the transferability would phase a court at all. The NFT by nature, being meant to be transferred, and with tools to prevent that where desired, would indicate intent.

Perhaps a better example would be me (the hypothetical creator of cryptokitties) selling a cryptokitty, with the obvious implication that I would not modify my game to invalidate said kitty. The final owner of the kitty, like yourself, could sue me for misrepresentation for selling a product I intended to disable. Perhaps for tortious interference.