{"title":"The Interpretation Matter in Smart (Legal) Contracts: Possible Answers from a Comparative Perspective","authors":"Francesco Petrosino","doi":"10.1515/gj-2023-0118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The present article is grounded in the following inquiry: are the rules concerning contractual interpretation provided by codified regulations or developed by jurisprudence for private law contracts also applicable to smart legal contracts? This question will be addressed through the utilization of a comparative research methodology, taking into account the trends embraced by scholars as well as by courts in both common law and civil law systems. In conclusion, and based on these methodological premises, various solutions present themselves to the interpreter, including the non-complete exclusion of the non-complete exclusion of the interpretative model based on the so-called contextualist theory. A similar theoretical approach would allow for an efficient synthesis between the more ambiguous legal expressions and the use of technological language.","PeriodicalId":34941,"journal":{"name":"Global Jurist","volume":"2 1","pages":"255 - 273"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Jurist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2023-0118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract The present article is grounded in the following inquiry: are the rules concerning contractual interpretation provided by codified regulations or developed by jurisprudence for private law contracts also applicable to smart legal contracts? This question will be addressed through the utilization of a comparative research methodology, taking into account the trends embraced by scholars as well as by courts in both common law and civil law systems. In conclusion, and based on these methodological premises, various solutions present themselves to the interpreter, including the non-complete exclusion of the non-complete exclusion of the interpretative model based on the so-called contextualist theory. A similar theoretical approach would allow for an efficient synthesis between the more ambiguous legal expressions and the use of technological language.
期刊介绍：
Global Jurist offers a forum for scholarly cyber-debate on issues of comparative law, law and economics, international law, law and society, and legal anthropology. Edited by an international board of leading comparative law scholars from all the continents, Global Jurist is mindful of globalization and respectful of cultural differences. We will develop a truly international community of legal scholars where linguistic and cultural barriers are overcome and legal issues are finally discussed outside of the narrow limits imposed by positivism, parochialism, ethnocentrism, imperialism and chauvinism in the law. Submission is welcome from all over the world and particularly encouraged from the Global South.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
