ABSTRACT The perpetual script of a smart contract, that executes an agreement machine-to-machine without prejudice, guarantees performance of ‘contractual terms’ enabling the exchange or transaction of cryptoassets and other forms of property. Yet, smart contracts as recognisable or valid legal instruments within the boundaries of contract or property law remain uncertain and contentious. Contrary to perceptions of contractual streamlining and efficiency, understanding the uncertainty smart contracts produce lies in the technology's failure to meet many of the fundamental principles of contract law and theory concerning, for example, breach of promise and remedy for breach. Smart contracts appear to reduce contracting to a form and standard well below that developed by contract law and theory over many centuries in both civil and common law jurisdictions. Including elements of the law of restitution, this article's remedial analysis will examine smart contracts considering ‘traditional’ contract law to understand and, where possible, test the legal legitimacy of this post-human technology, and explore the potential of smart contracts to supplement or, in time, supersede traditional contract law.

中文翻译：

---

智能合约：补救分析

摘要 智能合约的永久脚本，在无偏见的情况下执行机器对机器的协议，保证“合同条款”的履行，使加密资产和其他形式的财产能够交换或交易。然而，智能合约作为合同或财产法范围内可识别或有效的法律文书仍然不确定且有争议。与合同精简和效率的看法相反，理解智能合同产生的不确定性在于该技术未能满足合同法和理论的许多基本原则，例如，违反承诺和违约补救措施。智能合约似乎将合同减少到一种形式和标准，远低于几个世纪以来在大陆法系和普通法法域中由合同法和理论制定的标准。包括恢复原状的要素，本文的补救分析将考虑“传统”合同法检查智能合约，以了解并在可能的情况下测试这种后人类技术的法律合法性，并探索智能合约的潜力以补充或，及时取代传统的合同法。