1412 research outputs found
Sort by
Difficult and Novel Issues Explored by the Students Who Represented the University of Bucharest in the 2021-2022 Edition of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot
Full text linkThis article provides an overview of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot in general and of the novel and difficult legal issues raised by the 2021-2022 moot problem. The procedural issue revolved around determining the law applicable to an arbitration agreement where, as it is generally the case, the parties did not specifically select it, and with the additional twist of the existence/validity of the entire contract (including the arbitration agreement) being challenged by one of the parties. The relevant considerations are addressed in an article titled Midnight problems: finding the law applicable to the arbitration agreement , co-authored by Diana Bucovald and Raluca Rusu. The substantive issues raised by the 2021-2022 moot problem, which were closely intertwined with the jurisdictional challenge, involved contract formation, including incorporation of general conditions containing an arbitration agreement, where one of the contracting parties was part of a larger group of companies. The expansion of the corporate group of companies doctrine in the area of contract formation (including formation of an arbitration agreement) is explored in an article titled Relevance of the group of companies doctrine in international arbitration and contracting , co-authored by Mihnea-Filip Jere and Antonio-Alexandru Timnea. The incorporation of general conditions (including where they contain an arbitration agreement) is explored in an article titled To incorporate or not to incorporate? That is the issue. , co-authored by George Domocos and Alexandru Kdber
Compelling Code
Full text linkDoes the First Amendment protect computer code from being compelled by the government? As society becomes more reliant on coded deviceslike pacemakers, insulin pumps, and even some baby bassinets-courts will need to grapple with this question. In considering compulsions related to code, this Article concludes that intermediate scrutiny is almost always the appropriate standard of review. Rather than expressing a particular viewpoint, code generally constitutes a functional and neutral script. Given that a machine\u27s interpretation of code generally results in an objective action, not a subjective belief, the government need only show in most instances that the compulsion furthers a significant government interest. Accordingly, this Article argues that many requests for code compulsions are likely constitutional and will warrant compliance on the part of technology companies
I, Contract : Evaluating the Mistake Doctrine\u27s Application Where Autonomous Smart Contracts Make Bad Decisions
Full text linkAutonomous smart contracts and the blockchain are flagship technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. They are already in commercial use and uptake will undoubtedly increase as their many cost and efficiency benefits are realized. Already, advanced applications of smart contracts that integrate Artificial Intelligence are being developed at a feverish pace. The prospect of smart contracts being vested with the coded capacity to autonomously make “decisions” for their human parties is both exciting and unnerving. The obvious legal question that arises is whether the parties can plead the doctrine of mistake if the smart contract makes a decision that is unintended, irrational (in the sense that no rational human actor would have made the same decision through the organically intuitive human decision-making process), and undesirable. This Article addresses this novel question under American and Anglo-Australian contract law, ultimately concluding that in most cases the mistake doctrine likely will not avail aggrieved parties when a smart con-tract makes a “bad” decision
