Failed Technological Revolution in Contract Law: Apologetics of the Contract Traditionalist Interpretation

Technodeterminism determines the main task for civil law when solving issues related to blockchain technologies and smart contracts. This task is connected with the search for answers to the question of the need to amend civil legislation in order to adapt it to new technological challenges or about the possibility of effective application of existing legal norms to the regulation of innovative civil relations.

In the doctrine, there is a hypertrophied attitude towards blockchain and smart contract technologies. The standing exists that due to smart contracts, trust in people is replaced by trust in the code. Eschatological predictions were made about the beginning of the end of classical contract law, about emergance of «contract law 2.0». The paper states that the digital code will not be able to replace reality in the field of contractual relations. The revolution in contract law has not happened. Instead of the «revolutionary path» highlighted by some authors, there is a gradual evolutionary development of ideas about a civil contract. The civilistic doctrine has responded to technological challenges by becoming rhizomorphic in its interdisciplinarity, trying to comprehend the legal phenomena associated with the digitalization of public relations.

The «ideological core» of the civil doctrine, the «core» of the concept of the contract, remained untouchable. A legal smart contract has remained a speculative phenomenon from a parallel reality, a simulacrum. The Russian and foreign doctrines are dominated by the traditional interpretation of a civil contract, since the concept of a legal smart contract is not able to solve the problem of its incompleteness. From the perspective of futurological perspective, it can be assumed that the traditional approach to the contract will retain its significance, and the digital code will have only an auxiliary, servicing value for the contract.

1. Akhmedov AYa. K voprosu o priznakakh smart-kontrakta kak dogovornoy konstruktsii [To the question of the signs of a smart contract]. Law and the Digital Economy. 2020;2:22-25. (In Russ.).

2. Vitryansky VV. Nekotorye aspekty ucheniya o grazhdansko-pravovom dogovore v usloviyakh reformirovaniya grazhdanskogo zakonodatelstva [Some aspects of the doctrine of the civil contract in the context of civil law reform]. Problems of Private Law Development: Collection of Papers devoted to the Anniversary of Vladimir Saurseevich Em. Moscow; Statute; 2011 (Publ.).

3. Grin OS, Grin ES, Soloviev AV. Pravovaya konstruktsiya smart-kontrakta: yuridicheskaya priroda i sfera primeneniya [The legal design of the smart contract: The legal nature and scope of application]. Lex russica. 2019;8:51-62. (In Russ.).

4. Delez Zh. Platon i simulyakr [Plato and the Simulacrum]. In: Intentionality and textuality. Phylosophical Thought of France in 20th Century. Tomsk: Vodoley; 1998. (In Russ.).

5. Efimova LG, Mikheeva IE, Chub DV. Sravnitelnyy analiz doktrinalnykh kontseptsiy pravovogo regulirovaniya smart-kontraktov v Rossii i zarubezhnykh stranakh [Comparative Analysis of Doctrinal Concepts of Legal Regulating Smart Contracts in Russia and Foreign States]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. 2020;4:78- 105. (In Russ.).

6. Efimova LG, Sizemova OB. Pravovaya priroda smart-kontrakta [The legal nature of a smart contract]. Banking Law. 2019;1:23-30. (In Russ.).

7. Zotova TA. Predposylka ogranichennoj racionalnosti v izuchenii vlijanija institutov na jekonomicheskoe povedenie [The premise of limited rationality in the study of the influence of institutions on economic behavior]. Prosranstvo i ekonomika. 2011(2‑3):7-10. (In Russ.).

8. Kurmeleva EM, Meshcheryakova LYu. Simulyakr i obshchestvo v sovremennoy sotsialnoy teorii [Simulacrum and society in modern social theory]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2006;2:31-46. (In Russ.).

9. Lakatos I. Izbrannye proizvedeniya po filosofii i metodologii nauki [Selected works on philosophy and methodology of science]. Moscow: Akademicheskiy proekt Publ.; 2008. (In Russ.).

10. Maleina MN. Dogovornye konstruktsii: ponyatie, klassifikatsii, mesto v grazhdanskom zakonodatelstve [Contractual structures: the concept, classifications, place in civil laws]. Civil Law. 2021;39-12. (In Russ.).

11. Matiashvili VN. Kontsept «ogranichennoy ratsionalnosti» v kontekste upravleniya organizatsionnymi izmeneniyami [Bounded rationality concept in the context of change management]. Vestnik of Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni Novgorod. Social Sciences. 2015;1(37):148-154. (In Russ.).

12. Plakhov AS. Granitsy distsiplinarnogo opisaniya nauki: rizomaticheskiy podkhod [The boundaries of the disciplinary description of science: a rhizomatic approach]. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2014;4(42):143-154. (In Russ.).

13. Savelyev AI. Dogovornoe pravo 2.0: «umnye» kontrakty kak nachalo kontsa klassicheskogo dogovornogo prava [Contract law 2.0: smart contracts as the beginning of the end of classical contract law]. Civil Law Review. 2016;3:32-60. (In Russ.).

14. Simon G. Teoriya prinyatiya resheniy v ekonomicheskoy teorii i nauke o povedenii [Decision theory in Economic theory and Behavioral science]. In: Galperin VM (ed.). Milestones of economic thought. Theory of consumer behavior and demand. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg: Economic School Publ.; 1999. (In Russ.).

15. Sannikova LV, Kharitonov YuS. Tsifrovye aktivy i tekhnologii: nekotorye pravovye problemy vyrabotki ponyatiynogo apparata [Digital assets and technologies: some legal aspects of conceptual framework development]. Law and Digital Economy. 2018;1:25-30. (In Russ.).

16. Khokhlov VA. Obshchie polozheniya ob obyazatelstvakh [General provisions on obligations]. Moscow: Statut Publ.: 2015. (In Russ.).

17. Alefirenko NF, Rachut K. Cognitive lingvopragmatika in the language of modern science. Actual problems of philology and pedagogical linguistics. 2017;3(27):7-18.

18. Cuccuru P. Beyond Bitcoin: An Early Overview on Smart Contracts. International Journal of Law and Information Technology. 2017;25(3):179-185.

19. De Caria R. Blockchain and Smart Contracts: Legal Issues and Regulatory Responses Between Public and Private Economic Law. Italian Law Journal. 2020;6(1):363-379.

20. De Caria R. The Legal Meaning of Smart Contracts. European Review of Private Law. 2018;26(6):731-751.

21. De Graaf T. From Old to New: From Internet to Smart Contracts and From People to Smart Contracts. Computer Law & Security Review. 2019;35(5):40-59.

22. Deakin S. F., Markou Ch. The Law-Technology Cycle and the Future of Work (March 2018). University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 32/2018. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3183061.

23. Durovic M, Janssen A. Formation of Smart Contracts under Contract Law. The Cambridge Handbook of Smart Contracts, Blockchain Technology and Digital Platforms. L. DiMatteo, M. Cannarsa, C. Poncibò (eds.). Cambridge; 2019.

24. Durovic M., Lech F. The Enforceability of Smart Contracts. Italian Law Journal. 2019;5(2):493-511.

25. Gigerenzer G., Selten R. Bounded rationality. The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2002.

26. Gilmore G. The Death of Contract. 2nd edition. Ohio State University Press; 1995.

27. Guerlin G. Considerations sur les smart contracts. Dalloz IP/IT. Droit de la propriete intellectuelle et du numerique. 2017;10:512-513.

28. Hart O, Moore J. Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy. 1990;98(6):1119- 1158.

29. Janssen A. Demystifying Smart Contracts. In: Jansen CJH et al. (eds). Onderneming en Digitalisering. Wolters Kluwer; 2019.

30. Jünemann M., Milkau U. Can Code Be Law? Available at: https://digitalbusiness.law/2021/08/can-code-be-law/.

31. Lessig L. Code is Law. On Liberty in Cyberspace. Harvard Magazine. Available at: https://harvardmaga-zine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html.

32. Lingwall J, Mogallapu R. Should Code Be Law: Smart Contracts, Blockchain, and Boilerplate. UMKC Law Review. 2019;88(1):285-322

33. Low KFK, Mik E. Pause the Blockchain Legal Revolution. International & Comparative Law Quarterly. 2020;69(1):135-175. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3439918.

34. McKinney SA, Landy R, Wilka R. Smart Contracts, Blockchain, and the Next Frontier of Transactional Law. Washington Journal of Law Technology & Arts. 2018;13(3):313-322.

35. Meyer O. Stopping the Unstoppable: Termination and Unwinding of Smart Contracts. Journal of European Consumer and Market Law. 2020;9(1):17-24.

36. Paech Ph. The Governance of Blockchain Financial Networks (December 16, 2016). Modern Law Review. 2017;80(6):1073-1110. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2875487.

37. Pardolesi R, Davola A. What Is Wrong in the Debate About Smart Contracts (February 21, 2019). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3339421.

38. Pettit M. Jr. Modern Unilateral Contracts. Boston University Law Review. 1983;63(3):551-596.

39. Posner RA. The Law and Economics of Contract Interpretation (November 2004). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=610983.

40. Raskin M. The Law and Legality of Smart Contracts (September 22, 2016). Georgetown Law Technology Review. 2017;1:304 (2017). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2959166.

41. Savelyev A. Contract Law 2.0: «Smart» Contracts As the Beginning of the End of Classic Contract Law (December 14, 2016). Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 71/LAW/2016. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2885241.

42. Scholz L. Algorithmic Contracts. Stanford Technology Law Review. 2017;20(2):128-169.

43. Schwartz H. Herbert Simon and behavioral economics. Journal of Socio-Economics. 2002;31:181.

44. Simon HA. Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. Organization Science. 1991;2(1):125-134.

45. Summers RS, Hillman RA. Contract and Related Obligation: Theory, Doctrine, and Practice. 7th edition. West Academic Publishing; 2015.

46. Tapscott D, Tapscott A. Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business and the World. London: Portfolio; 2016.

47. Vey A. Assessing the Content of Contracts: Implied Terms from a Comparative Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2011. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1837545.

48. Werbach K, Cornell N. Contracts Ex Machina (March 18, 2017). Duke Law Journal. 2017;67:313. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2936294.