DUROVICAND, Mateja, JANSSEN, André “The Formation of Smart Contracts and Beyond: Shaking the Fundamentals of Contract Law?” in book: “Smart Contracts and Blockchain Technology: Role of Contract Law”, (L. DiMatteo, M. Cannarsa & C. Poncibo eds Cambridge University Press, forthcoming https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327732779.
The authors conclude pointing that “there are [other] smart contracting features that challenge the traditional contract law approaches beyond the formation of contracts itself. The firm and self-enforcing nature of the smart contracts is in conflict with the concept of flexible, enforceable legal contracts. Likewise, the objectives of ‘traditional’ contracts and smart contracts differ considerably. Furthermore, it is challenging to bring the ex-ante automated assessment of smart contracts in line with the traditional contract law concept of ex post authoritative judgments. […] Eventually, an important point to raise is whether smart contracting represents challenges for the mandatory rules of consumer protection including consumer’s right of withdrawal from the contract. All in all, one should not be afraid of contract law challenges posed by smart contracts. “
BODO, Balázs , GERVAIS, João, QUINTAIS, Pedro (2018) Blockchain and smart contracts: the missing link in copyright licensing? International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Volume 26, Issue 4, 1 December 2018, Pages 311–336, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay014, 25 September 2018
The authors highlight how “Smart contracts may well prove a powerful way to license copyright material and to provide higher levels of transparency in financial flows to creators. Blockchain-based solutions can also be used to provide a vast and secure repository for RMI, at least in certain sectors.”
KOLBER, Adam J. (2018) “Not-So-Smart Blockchain Contracts and Artificial Responsibility” at 21 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 198 (2018). https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Kolber_LL_20180910.pdf
The author argues that “the code does not reflect the entirety of the parties’ agreement, and so the “code is the contract” slogan does not resolve whether The DAO exploitation should have been mitigated.” Kolber also points “to a broader danger lurking in the code-is-the-contract view. The DAO had tremendous “artificial responsibility” in that we gave it considerable control that couldn’t be easily revoked or reined in”.