The legality of smart contract through the lens of Indian Contract Act
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15175/w0ztm173Palavras-chave:
rule of law, artificial intelligence, black box, smart contract, traditional contractResumo
Smart contracts, a revolutionary technology that offers a digital alternative to conventional contracts, are popular. Smart contracts also known as automated digital contracts are becoming common in various countries due to their efficiency and openness. Various national and global forums have agreed that smart contracts might alter contract enforcement and boost economic development in India. Given this, it’s crucial to understand the Indian Contract Act, (ICA) 1872 stance on smart contracts. ICA requires testing smart contracts for contractual validity before entering the uncharted seas of autonomous and anonymous digital contracting. This experiment raises many issues, especially given the law’s strict procedural structure. This article refutes the claim that smart contracts should be regulated by self-regulation. Rather author prefers a broad interpretation of substantive contractual law to harmonize smart contracts under the ICA, following common law’s flexibility. It is shown that smart contracts are built on the same principles as common law contracts and deepen our research in the framework of Indian law and precedent. Similar approaches from other countries support this perspective. Although many legislations require change, it is believed that a smart contract law is not needed. The paper concludes by proposing solutions to the potential obstacles that may arise due to present approach.
Downloads
Referências
CLEMENT, Alexandre. fizzy by AXA: Ethereum Smart Contract in details. Medium, 24 May 2019. Available at: https://medium.com/@humanGamepad/fizzy-by-axa-ethereum-smart-contract-in-details-40e140a9c1c0. Accessed: 2 May 2025.
ENGLAND. Queen’s Bench Division. Decision. Edwards v Skyways. Apr. 11, 1964. All England Reporter, 494. Available at: https://ipsaloquitur.com/contract-law/cases/edwards-v-skyways/. Accessed: May 2, 2025.
ENGLAND. Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Decision 1 QB 163. 18 Dec. 1970. Wales Law Report, 1. Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87860d03e7f57ec103b. Accessed: 2 May 2025.
GITHUB. Aragon/whitepaper: An opt-in digital jurisdiction for DAOs and sovereign individuals. [2019?]. Available at: https://github.com/aragon/whitepaper. Accessed: May 2, 2025.
HART, Oliver D. The theory of contracts. Cambridge, Ma: Dept. of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1986.
INDIA. Indian Contract Act, of 1872 (ICA). Act No. 9 of 1872, 25 Apr. 1872. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2187/2/A187209.pdf. Accessed: 12 Sept. 2025.
INDIA. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). India Code, Jun 9, 2000. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13116/1/it_act_2000_updated.pdf. Accessed: Sept. 12, 2025.
INDIA. Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. Guidelines for Usage of Digital Signatures in e-Governance. Dec. 2010. Available at: http://bit.ly/4gro5f0. Accessed: Sept. 12, 2025.
INDIA. Ministry of Law and Justice. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Nº 45 of 2023.Dec. 25, 2023. Available at: https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf. Accessed: Sept. 12, 2025.
HSIAO, Jerry I.-H. “Smart” contract on the blockchain-paradigm shift for contract law? US-China Law Review, v. 14, n. 10, 28 Oct. 2017. Available at: https://www.davidpublisher.com/index.php/Home/Article/index?id=34210.html. Accessed: 2 May 2025.
UNITED KINGDOM. Law Comission. Smart legal contracts Advice to Government. London: HH, 2021. Available at: http://bit.ly/46kup38. Accessed: May 2, 2025.
SINGAPORE. Singapore International Commercial Court. B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC(I) 03. Mar. 14, 2019. Available at: https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/gd/2019_SGHCI_3/pdf. Accessed: May 2, 2025.
TJONG TJIN TAI, Eric. Force Majeure and Excuses in Smart Contracts. European Review of Private Law, v. 26, n. 6, p. 787-804, 1 Dec. 2018. https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2018055
UNITED STATES. Congress. H. REPT. 115-984 - Financial Technology Protection Act. Sept. 26, 2018. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/115th-congress/house-report/984/1. Accessed: May 2, 2025.
VATIERO, Massimiliano. Smart Contracts vs Incomplete Contracts: A Transaction Cost Economics Viewpoint (September 25, 2018). Computer Law & Security Review, v. 46, 105710, September 2022. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259958
VENTURA, Tim. Propy’s Mission to Transform the Real Estate Industry. Medium, 24 Jun. 2020. Available at: https://medium.com/@timventura/propys-mission-to-transform-the-real-estate-industry-c03b76d012ba. Accessed: 2 May 2025.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 Passagens: Revista Internacional de História Política e Cultura Jurídica
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Solicita-se enviar, em anexo, um termo de transferência de direitos autorais, contendo assinatura do(a)s autor(a)s, conforme o modelo abaixo:
Este trabalho está licenciado com uma Licença licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional.
