Designing a Smarter Law that Enables Smart Contracts that are Useful in Everyday Life
|概要||Suppose that a supplier of goods or services and a consumer enter into a contract for goods or services. If the terms and conditions of the contract are prefixed by the supplier unilaterally and the c...hoice of the consumer is just to accept or decline, it is very easy to implement an automatic contracting process for them. Everyday, we experience such simple and automated contracting processes when we ride on the subway and buses using IC cards.
However, in many cases, the terms that each of the parties to a contract deems acceptable in advance are very abstract and have some flexibility. Such anticipated terms may include the conditions most preferred by a party to those least preferred. There is no guarantee that the resulting contract will satisfy both parties. The terms and conditions of the contract to be executed are likely to have multiple alternatives. The finally decided terms just represent one of many possible alternatives. It would be difficult for such terms to completely satisfy both parties. In order to make smart contracts widely implemented in our society, a system that automatically matches the terms and conditions of both parties to a contract (hereinafter, referred to as a smart contract platform) must be able to establish a contract with fair and reasonable terms and conditions that can satisfy both parties in such complex situation. The currently spreading use of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) using deep learning is likely to make such a smart contract platform realistic.
However, suppose that both parties to a contract could have gone through a human to human negotiation, and that the final terms are not preferable or disadvantageous to one of the parties. Possibly, such disadvantaged parties would try to persuade themselves that such undesirable or disadvantageous results were caused by their or their agent’s incompetence. However, if such undesirable or disadvantageous terms are caused automatically by a smart contract platform, the disadvantaged party may feel great frustration because they can hardly find a reason to blame themselves. Also, it is possible for a smart contract platform to manipulate the terms of a contract by utilizing the very wide scope of acceptable terms prefixed by the consumer, thereby, giving an advantage to the supplier. Such manipulation will be deemed unfair, even though it does not necessarily constitute fraud. Moreover, if a smart contract platform is provided exclusively by one or a very limited number of companies, the platform may be programmed to be advantageous or disadvantageous to specific or specific categories of suppliers. For example, a smart contract platform used to enable electricity supply companies and consumers who want to quickly charge their electric vehicles (EVs) to contract automatically may be programmed to increase the probability that established and conventional electricity supply companies can contract with consumers within the scope of the terms prefixed by the consumers. It is also probable that a smart contract platform will apply different terms and conditions, such as by giving priority to contracts with consumers of certain electricity supply companies, and give advantages to some of them, and cause disadvantages to others. The implementation of smart legal tools in the society is likely to require us to design legal tools such as the obligatory disclosure of an automatic contracting process, auditing or monitoring by a third party, and competition among multiple smart contract platform providers, to ensure a fair smart contracting process, and also to prevent misappropriation of smart contract platforms for unfair purposes. However, designing such legal tools is likely to cause another problem. A law must be enforced based on the evidence required by the law itself. If a smart contract platform is organized and operated by a fixed algorithm that does not change and update itself automatically, it would be plausible to prove that the platform was programmed by ab human to cause unfair results. However, suppose that an A.I. implemented in a smart contract platform keeps learning and constantly and incrementally updates itself. It is improbable that lawyers could prove that a smart contract platform producing unfair results was really programmed by a human to cause such results. To tackle such problems would also be the duty of lawyers.続きを見る