IS INSISTING ON SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE UNDER SMART CONTRACTS DESIRABLE? INFLEXIBILITIES OF SMART CONTRACTS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

Öz

Smart contracts, as written by computer code, would secure the performance of the contract. It is believed that this feature of smart contracts is marketed as the solution to traditional contracts, which can be easily breached. The potential benefits of automated performance, such as certainty, would bring benefits to all parties. However, this idea of automated performance would not be desirable all the time. Not allowing for a breach by insisting on the specific performance required by a smart contract would be considered practically and economically inefficient, and which might deter their widespread use. As an illustration of this inflexibility, “efficient breach theory” will be used to prove that insisting on the specific performance of the obligation secured by a smart contract would not be desirable for the contractual parties. After showing this inflexibility, a feasible solution for this concern will be presented within the design of contracts. Before discussing this issue, in the second section, the definition of smart contracts and, and its potential benefits, will be explained. In the third section, as the main issue, how automated performance can cause inflexibilities, the difficulty of predicting future events, and the impossibility of a breach will be analysed. After detecting these problems, whether the design of a smart contract can help to alleviate these inflexibilities will be discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• smart contract
• efficient breach theory
• specific performance

Akıllı Sözleşmelerde Borcun İfasında Israr Etmek Gerekir mi?: Olası Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri

Öz

Bilgisayar koduyla yazılan akıllı sözleşmeler, sözleşmenin ifasını güvence altına alacaktır. Akıllı sözleşmelerin bu özelliğinin, kolayca ihlal edilebilecek sözleşmelere alternatif olarak önerilmektedir. Sözleşme ifasının teminat altına alınması taraflara öngörülebilirlik ve kesinlik sağlayacaktır. Bununla birlikte, bu otomatik ifa fikri her zaman arzu edilmeyecektir. Akıllı bir sözleşmenin gerektirdiği belirli borcun ifası üzerinde ısrar etmek ve bir ihlale izin vermemek, ekonomik olarak verimsiz kabul edilebilir ve bu da akıllı sözleşmelerin yaygın kullanımlarını caydırabilir. Akıllı sözleşmede aynen ifa konusunda ısrar etmenin sözleşme tarafları için arzu edilmeyeceğini kanıtlamak için "etkin ihlal teorisi" kullanılacaktır. Bu esnekliği gösterdikten sonra, akıllı sözleşmelerin tasarımında bu sorunun çözümü için uygulanabilir bir çözüm sunulacaktır. Bu konuyu tartışmadan önce, ikinci bölümde akıllı sözleşmelerin tanımı ve potansiyel faydaları açıklanacaktır. Üçüncü bölümde, ana konu olarak, akıllı sözleşmelerde borcun ifasının otomatik olarak gerçekleşmesindeki olası sorunlar ele alınacak ve gelecekteki olayları tahmin etmenin zorluğu ve bir ihlalin imkansızlığı halleri analiz edilecektir. Bu sorunları tespit ettikten sonra, akıllı bir sözleşmenin tasarımının bu sorunların çözümünde nasıl bir rol olacağı tartışılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Akıllı Sözleşmeler
• Aynen İfa
• Hukuk ve Ekonomi Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Cooter R and Ulen T, Law and economics (Sixth edition.; International edition. edn, Harlow, Essex : Pearson 2014)
2. De Filippi P and Wright A, Blockchain and the law : the rule of code (Harvard University Press 2019)
3. Gatteschi V, Lamberti F and Demartini C, ‘Technology of Smart Contracts’ in DiMatteo LA, Cannarsa M and Poncibò C (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Smart Contracts, Blockchain Technology and Digital Platforms (Cambridge University Press 2019)
4. Duxbury R, Contract Law: Textbook Series (Sweet & Maxwell 2014)
5. Hart OD, Firms, contracts, and financial structure (Oxford : Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press 1995) Kimel D, From promise to contract : towards a liberal theory of contract (Oxford : Hart 2003)
6. Klass and Gregory, ‘Efficient Breach’ in Klass G, Letsas G and Saprai P (eds), Philosophical Foundations of Contract Law (First edition. edn, Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press 2014)
7. Liao W, The Application of the Theory of Efficient Breach in Contract Law: A Comparative Law and Economics Perspective (Intersentia 2015)
8. Marino B and Juels A, Setting Standards for Altering and Undoing Smart Contract (Springer International Publishing 2016)

9. Murray A, Information technology law : the law & society (4th edition. edn, Oxford, United Kingdom : Oxford University Press 2019)
10. Möslein F, ‘Legal Boundaries of Blockchain Technologies: Smart Contracts as Self-Help?’ in De Franceschi A and others (eds), Digital Revolution - New challenges for Law (Forthcoming) (2019)
11. Poncibò C and Dimatteo LA, ‘Smart Contracts: Contractual and Noncontractual Remedies’ in Dimatteo LA, Cannarsa M and Poncibò C (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Smart Contracts, Blockchain Technology and Digital Platforms (Cambridge University Press 2019)
12. Posner RA, Economic analysis of law (Boston, Mass. 1973)
13. Posner RA, Economic analysis of law (Seventh edition. edn, Austin, USA : Wolters Kluwer for Aspen Publishers 2007)
14. Scholz LH, ‘Algorithmic Contracts and Consumer Privacy’ in Poncibò C, DiMatteo LA and Cannarsa M (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Smart Contracts, Blockchain Technology and Digital Platforms (Cambridge Law Handbooks, Cambridge University Press 2019)
15. Al-Tawil T, ‘English Contract Law and the Efficient Breach Theory: Can They Co-Exist?’ (2015) 22 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 396
16. Anderlini L and Felli L, Bounded rationality and incomplete contracts (Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines 2000)
17. Bacina M, ‘WHEN TWO WORLDS COLLIDE: SMART CONTRACTS AND THE AUSTRALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM’ (2018) 21 Journal of Internet Law 15
18. Cuccuru P, ‘Beyond bitcoin: an early overview on smart contracts’ (2017) 25 International Journal of Law and Information Technology 179
19. Cutts T, ‘Smart Contracts and Consumers’ LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No 1/2019 accessed 21 May 2020
20. Dell’Erba M, ‘Demystifying Technology. Do Smart Contracts Require a New Legal Framework? Regulatory
21. Fragmentation, Self-Regulation, Public Regulation’ University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Public Affairs (Forthcoming) accessed 20 April 2020
22. Finck M, ‘Smart contracts as a form of solely automated processing under the GDPR’ (2019) 9 International Data Privacy Law 78
23. Hermalin BE and Katz ML, ‘Information and the hold‐up problem’ (2009) 40 RAND Journal of Economics 405
24. Lando H and Rose C, ‘On the enforcement of specific performance in Civil Law countries’ (2004) 24 International Review of Law & Economics 473
25. Levy KEC, ‘Book-Smart, Not Street-Smart: Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts and The Social Workings of Law’ (2017) 3 Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 1
26. Macrinici D, Cartofeanu C and Gao S, ‘Smart contract applications within blockchain technology: A systematic mapping study’ (2018) 35 Telematics and Informatics 2337
27. Mik E, ‘Smart contracts: terminology, technical limitations and real world complexity’ (2017) 9 Law, Innovation and Technology 269
28. Muris TJ, ‘Opportunistic Behavior and the Law of Contracts’ (1981) 65 Minnesota Law Review
29. Posner R, ‘The law and economics of contract interpretation’ (2005) 83 Texas law review 1581
30. Savelyev A, ‘Contract law 2.0: ‘Smart’ contracts as the beginning of the end of classic contract law’ (2017) 26 Information & Communications Technology Law 116
31. Scoca V, Uriarte RB and Nicola RD, Smart Contract Negotiation in Cloud Computing (2017)
32. Sklaroff JM, ‘Smart contracts and the cost of inflexibility’ (2017) 166 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 263
33. Tjong Tjin Tai E, ‘Force Majeure and Excuses in Smart Contracts’ (2018) 26 European Review of Private Law 787
34. Werbach K and Cornell N, ‘Contracts ex machina’ (2017) 67 Duke Law Journal 313