Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the article is determining the advantages and disadvantages of using both «smart contracts» and «classic» contracts in contractual practice, with the possibility of agreeing on the conditions and applying the full range of available legal technology tools.
Design/Methodology/Approach: We use dialectic and comparative legal research methods.
Findings: The article identifies the concept of smart contracts, their scope, advantages and disadvantages of use. We study the means of legal technology, which are used in the text of a traditional contract. The question of the basis for comparing smart contracts and contracts that exist in the form of text is investigated. The prospects for the using of smart contracts and traditional contracts are determined.
Originality/Value: It has been established that the process of negotiating the terms of a traditional contract is carried out through negotiations and the search for the most appropriate formulations. The parties may agree on conditions that most closely reflect their interests and at the same time comply with applicable law.
There are also used terms that serve to ensure a uniform understanding of the text of the contract. Such an approach, however, may lead to errors and the need for interpretation of the contract.
Smart contracts aren’t based on text, but on computer code, through which the terms of the contract are recorded. This deprives such an agreement of the shortcomings that are usually inherent in the text - errors in the formulation of certain conditions, different understanding of the terms used by the parties.
However, smart contracts have a limited scope, and shouldn’t be used in cases of regulation of atypical relations of parties requiring an individual approach.
Smart contracts can successfully replace mass accession agreements existing in the form of typing and concluded via the Internet (for example, contracts for the sale of goods in online stores), due to their unconditional advantages - self-fulfillment, the inability to make changes to an already concluded contract, the fundamental lack of interpretation of the treaty.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bodó, B., Gervais, D., Quintais, J.P.: Blockchain and smart contracts: the missing link in copyright licensing? Int. J. Law Inf. Technol. 26(4), 311–336 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay014
Christidis, K., Devetsikiotis, M.: Blockchains and smart contracts for the Internet of Things. IEEE Access 4, 2292–2303 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2566339
La Diega, G.N.: Blockchains, smart contracts, and copyright law. Proc. Inst. State Law RAS 14(3) (2019). https://doi.org/10.35427/2073-4522-2019-14-3-notoladiega
Duke, A.: What does the CISG have to say about smart contracts? A legal analysis. Chicago J. Int. Law 20(1), 4 (2019)
Grin, O.S., Grin, E.S., Solovyov, A.V.: The legal design of the smart contract: the legal nature and scope of application. Lex Russica 8(8), 51–62 (2019). https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2019.153.8.051-062
Ivashchenko, N.P., Shastitko, A.Y., Shpakova, A.A.: Smart contracts throught lens of the new institutional economics. J. Inst. Stud. 11(3), 064–083 (2019). https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2019.11.3.064-083
Mitrofanova, I.: The legislative regulation of “smart” contracts: the problems and prospects of development. Legal Concept 4, 22–29 (2018). https://doi.org/10.15688/lc.jvolsu.2018.4.3
Zaheer, A.: On smart contracts and organisational performance: a review of smart contracts through the blockchain technology. Rev. Econ. Bus. Stud. 11(2), 137–156 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1515/rebs-2018-0079
Gryleva, I.: Smart contracts and blockchain technology. Econ. Bus. 4(1), 64–66 (2019). https://doi.org/10.24411/2411-0450-2019-10528
Davydova, M.: Legal technology: problems of theory and methodology. GOU VPO “VolSU”, Volgograd. Publishing House of VolSU, Volgograd (2009)
Davydova, M., Kozlova, M.: Some trends in the development of the legal language of the modern civil law contract. Legal Sci. Pract. Bull. Nizhny Novgorod Acad. Ministry Intern. Aff. Russia 3(47), 113–118 (2019). https://doi.org/10.36511/2078-5356-2019-3-113-118
Egorov, V.E., Harm, I.V.: Some judgments on the definition of the subject and object of a civil law contract. Bull. Pskov State Univ. Ser. Econ. Law Manag. (1), 121–126 (2015). http://eng.pskgu.ru/nekotor-e-sujdeniya-po-opredeleniyu-predmeta-i-obekta-grajdansko-pravovogo-dogovora
Kardonov, A.: Areas of application of smart contracts and risks when working with them. Bus. Educ. Knowl. Econ. 1, 44–47 (2018). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sfery-primeneniya-smart-kontraktov-i-riski-pri-rabote-s-nimi
Savelyev, A.I.: Contract law 2.0: “smart” contracts as the beginning of the end of classic contract law. Bull. Civil Law 3, 32–60 (2016)
Saltykov, K.G.: Features of the interpretation of legal terminology. Bull. Krasnodar Univ. Ministry Intern. Aff. Russia 2(32), 93–98 (2016)
Acknowledgments
The reported study was funded by RFBR according to the research project № 19-011-00251 «The tendencies of juridical technique’s language means development in civil contract».
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kozlova, M.Y., Aleksandrina, M. (2021). “Smart Contracts” vs Legal Technology in Contract Practice. In: Popkova, E.G., Sergi, B.S. (eds) "Smart Technologies" for Society, State and Economy. ISC 2020. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 155. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59126-7_131
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59126-7_131
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-59125-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-59126-7
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)