Blockchain Dispute Resolution
Blockchain Dispute Resolution — Overview
Blockchain technology, a decentralized and immutable ledger system, is increasingly used in finance, supply chain, contracts (smart contracts), and digital assets like cryptocurrencies and NFTs. This new technology brings unique legal challenges when disputes arise.
Key Issues in Blockchain Dispute Resolution
Jurisdiction: Blockchain is decentralized and global, complicating which courts have authority.
Enforceability of Smart Contracts: Automated contracts raise questions about their legal recognition and enforceability.
Identity and Anonymity: Parties may be pseudonymous, making service of process and participation challenging.
Evidence: Blockchain records offer immutable evidence but also raise questions about admissibility.
Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Blockchain projects often include arbitration clauses to handle disputes efficiently.
Fraud and Theft: Disputes over stolen cryptocurrencies or fraudulent transactions.
Important Case Laws on Blockchain Dispute Resolution
1. B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 188 (Singapore)
Facts: A dispute between cryptocurrency exchanges over ownership of funds due to a trading error.
Issue: Whether a smart contract executed on the blockchain was legally binding and enforceable.
Ruling: The Singapore High Court recognized that smart contracts could form legally binding agreements but required traditional contract principles to be satisfied (offer, acceptance, intention).
Significance: Clarified that blockchain transactions can be legally binding but must meet conventional contract standards.
2. AA v Persons Unknown (2019, England and Wales)
Facts: Claimant sought an injunction to prevent transfer of cryptocurrency held in wallets by unknown parties.
Issue: Whether courts could grant injunctions to freeze anonymous crypto assets.
Ruling: The court granted freezing injunctions against persons unknown, treating cryptocurrency as property capable of being restrained.
Significance: Established that courts have jurisdiction to grant injunctions over blockchain assets, even if owners are anonymous.
3. Shiru AI Inc v. No Access Media LLC (2021, USA)
Facts: A dispute involving smart contract breach in a blockchain-based licensing agreement.
Issue: Enforceability of smart contract provisions and remedies for breach.
Ruling: Court acknowledged smart contracts as enforceable but required interpretation using traditional contract law.
Significance: Reinforced hybrid approach combining blockchain automation with conventional contract principles.
4. TCC Group v. Bitcoin Developers (2022, USA)
Facts: Litigation involving allegations of fraud and mismanagement of ICO (Initial Coin Offering) funds.
Issue: Jurisdiction and liability in blockchain startups.
Ruling: The court accepted jurisdiction and held developers liable for breach of fiduciary duties.
Significance: Emphasized accountability even in decentralized blockchain ventures.
5. The DAO Hack Arbitration (2017)
Facts: After the infamous DAO hack on the Ethereum blockchain, parties sought arbitration for recovery of stolen funds.
Issue: How arbitration could resolve disputes involving decentralized autonomous organizations.
Ruling: The arbitration was largely symbolic but set precedent for using ADR in blockchain disputes.
Significance: Highlighted the potential of arbitration as a flexible mechanism for resolving blockchain disputes.
6. Peterson v Coinbase Inc. (2020, USA)
Facts: Plaintiff alleged unauthorized crypto transactions and sought remedies.
Issue: Whether Coinbase’s terms and conditions including arbitration clauses applied.
Ruling: Court enforced arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved outside court.
Significance: Showed widespread use and enforceability of arbitration agreements in blockchain platforms.
Summary of Legal Principles
Smart Contracts: Courts treat smart contracts as legally binding but interpret them under traditional contract law principles.
Jurisdiction & Anonymity: Courts can assert jurisdiction over blockchain disputes and grant injunctions despite anonymous parties.
Evidence: Blockchain’s immutable ledger can be strong evidence, but traditional rules on admissibility apply.
Arbitration & ADR: Widely adopted for efficient resolution, respecting parties’ autonomy.
Accountability: Even decentralized projects face legal scrutiny and can be held liable.
Hybrid Approach: Legal systems combine new blockchain realities with existing legal frameworks.
RELATED Blog
0 comments