Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack
by lottin on Sunday May 16, 2021 @06:27PM
(#27177617)
But for this arrangement to work the customer, the construction party and the third-party need to enter into an agreement, i.e. a traditional contract. A traditional contract is legally binding, so of course the courts would treat it as legally binding. The smart contract may be part of the agreement but a smart contract by itself is not an agreement and something cannot be a legally-binding agreement if it isn't an agreement to begin with.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Missing line in a smart contract leads to $10M hack
by tshaddox on Sunday May 16, 2021 @06:38PM
(#27177723)
I suspect a court would tend to take the existence of the smart contract as a pretty clear indication of the intent of the involved parties. But of course if you’re entering a significant commercial agreement like this you had better make an explicit traditional contract as well.