AI and Contract Law: Smart Contracts and Automated Decision-Making

The intersection of contract law, artificial intelligence (AI), and smart contracts tells a fascinating yet complex story. As technology takes on a more prominent role in transactions and decision-making, it raises crucial questions about how foundational legal concepts like offer, acceptance, and intent apply. With the growing use of AI, concerns regarding accountability, enforceability, and the potential for failure also come into play. This article digs into these issues by examining three key questions:

How do smart contracts and AI-driven automated decision-making systems challenge traditional contract formation principles like offer, acceptance, and intent?

Should AI systems be considered legal entities capable of entering into contracts, or should liability rest solely with the developers or users?

What remedies exist if a smart contract fails due to an AI malfunction or external manipulation?

Smart Contracts, Automated Decision-Making, and Traditional Contract Formation

Understanding Contract Formation

In the realm of contract law, three essential elements create a valid agreement: offer, acceptance, and intent. Simply put, one party makes an offer, another accepts it, and both display a mutual intention to form a binding agreement. These elements are deeply rooted in human interaction.

Offer: One party proposes to either perform or refrain from a certain action.

Acceptance: The other party agrees to the terms of the offer.

Intent: Both parties must intend to enter into a legally binding agreement.

When we consider smart contracts and AI-driven systems, these traditional principles face serious challenges.

Smart Contracts and the Erosion of Traditional Contract Elements

A smart contract is a self-executing agreement with the terms written directly into code. Operating on blockchain technology, these contracts offer transparency and security, but they also complicate traditional concepts.

Offer: In a typical scenario, making an offer requires thoughtful negotiation. However, smart contracts can automate this process, which begs the question: does an “offer” hold the same meaning if generated by code instead of human interaction?

Acceptance: Unlike traditional agreements where acceptance is a conscious act, smart contracts execute automatically based on programmed conditions. When conditions are met, the contract carries out without further human input. This leads us to wonder: how do we define acceptance when it’s entirely driven by code?

Intent: The concept of intent becomes even murkier. AI systems can act on algorithms without human oversight, complicating the traditional understanding of intent. While there may be intent at the contract’s creation, it becomes vague once machines execute the contract without direct human engagement.

Automated Decision-Making and Unconscious Contracts

AI systems, especially those with advanced algorithms, can autonomously negotiate and execute contracts. This capability stretches the boundaries of traditional contract law, which fundamentally relies on human decision-making.

For example, if an AI decides it’s time to enter into a contract based on market data, does that action represent “acceptance”? If the AI acts without human intent, can we truly consider its decisions valid expressions of will? The principle of mutual assent—a cornerstone of contract law—becomes difficult to maintain when machines are part of the equation. The essence of contract law—that both parties willingly agree to terms—gets fuzzy when one of the parties is an algorithm.

Legal Status of AI Systems: Should AI be Recognized as Legal Entities?

As AI continues to develop, a significant debate arises: should we recognize AI systems as legal entities capable of forming contracts? Traditionally, only humans and legal entities like corporations could enter into contracts. AI systems have typically been seen as tools, with liability resting with their developers or users.

Arguments for Recognizing AI as Legal Entities

Autonomy: Modern AI systems can function independently, raising the question of whether they should be accountable as legal entities. If an AI can negotiate and finalize contracts, some argue it should also bear the legal responsibilities that come with those actions.

Accountability: Granting AI legal status might streamline accountability. If an AI breaches a contract, could it be held responsible on its own? This might simplify legal processes by treating AI as independent actors, akin to corporations.

Efficiency: Recognizing AI systems as legal entities could facilitate smoother transactions. This shift might reduce the need for constant human oversight in AI-driven processes, promoting faster and more efficient operations.

Arguments Against AI as Legal Entities

Lack of Moral Agency: AI lacks moral and ethical reasoning. Traditional legal frameworks assume that legal entities understand the implications of their actions. Since AI operates based on algorithms rather than ethical considerations, treating it as a legal person poses significant challenges.

Unpredictability: AI systems, particularly those utilizing machine learning, can behave unpredictably. Holding AI accountable for such actions raises complexities, as even developers might struggle to grasp the decisions made by their own creations. It seems more logical to hold developers or users responsible instead.

Regulatory Issues: Granting legal status to AI could complicate regulatory frameworks. How would we penalize an AI for wrongful actions? Traditional methods like fines or imprisonment don’t apply to machines, complicating the enforcement of accountability.

A Balanced Approach: Liability for Developers and Users

Currently, the consensus is that AI should not be treated as legal entities. Instead, responsibility should rest with the individuals or organizations behind the AI. This approach keeps human accountability front and center.

In this context, the principle of vicarious liability comes into play. Just as an employer is liable for an employee’s actions, developers and users can be held accountable for the decisions made by their AI systems.

Remedies for Smart Contract Failures due to AI Malfunction or External Manipulation

Smart contracts are designed to be self-executing and minimize human error. However, this very feature can become problematic when a smart contract malfunctions or is manipulated.

Issues Arising from AI Malfunctions

When an AI fails—whether due to a coding error or unforeseen circumstances—the consequences can be significant, especially if a smart contract is executed incorrectly. Traditional legal remedies like rescission (voiding the contract) or reformation (changing the terms) don’t easily apply to immutable smart contracts.

Possible remedies might include:

Judicial Intervention: Courts may need to intervene to halt a smart contract from executing in the event of a malfunction. This could involve freezing transactions on the blockchain or nullifying the contract entirely. However, this raises concerns about undermining the core benefits of smart contracts, such as decentralization and automation.

Force Majeure Clauses: Developers can incorporate force majeure clauses in smart contracts to handle unexpected malfunctions or external events. Such clauses could allow for the contract to be paused or amended if certain conditions arise, providing parties with the opportunity to negotiate a solution.

Liability Insurance: Users of AI and smart contracts might consider obtaining specialized liability insurance to cover potential losses from malfunctions. This approach shifts the risk from individual parties to an insurer, ensuring that losses are addressed without necessitating legal intervention.

Addressing External Manipulation

Smart contracts are also vulnerable to external threats, such as hacking or code exploitation. Enforcing remedies for such breaches can be tough, particularly in systems where parties’ identities are often anonymous.

Potential remedies could involve:

Security Audits: Regularly auditing smart contract code and implementing robust security measures can help minimize risks. For instance, using multi-signature transactions—requiring multiple approvals before executing a contract—can enhance security.

Blockchain Governance: Community-led governance structures could be established to tackle issues when smart contracts are compromised. Such systems might roll back harmful transactions or freeze assets in response to manipulations.

Legal Recourse for Breaches: Courts might recognize breaches resulting from external manipulation as grounds for nullifying contracts or providing remedies. However, like with AI malfunctions, this creates tension between the need for human oversight and the advantages of immutability.

Conclusion

The rise of smart contracts and AI-driven automated decision-making systems challenges traditional contract law principles, particularly those related to offer, acceptance, and intent. While AI systems may not yet be recognized as legal entities, questions of liability and accountability will continue to be central as these technologies become more integrated into commercial transactions.

To mitigate risks associated with AI malfunctions and external manipulation, developers, users, and legal professionals must innovate with new remedies, including the incorporation

References:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=865220f0-e722-4c73-89ca-c58ce2120c64 

https://hbr.org/2018/02/how-ai-is-changing-contracts 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381893636_The_Impact_of_Artificial_Intelligence_on_Contract_Law_Challenges_and_Opportunities 

https://contractpodai.com/news/what-is-contract-ai/ 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/navigating-ai-web3-revolution-emerging-frontiers-law-asare-ofori/ 

file:///Users/aabisislam/Downloads/4.+The+Impact+of+Artificial+Intelligence+on+Contract+Law.pdf 

https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1751&context=scholarlyworks 

https://jlrjs.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/140.-Kinnari-Solanki.pdf 

https://www.top.legal/en/knowledge/ai-contract-management-benefits 

Journal: Werbach, K., & Cornell, N. (2017). “Contracts Ex Machina.” Duke Law Journal, 67(2), 313-382. 

Journal: Raskin, M. (2017). “The Law and Legality of Smart Contracts.” Georgetown Law Technology Review, 1(2), 305-341.

Journal: Sklaroff, J. M. (2018). “Smart Contracts and the Cost of Inflexibility.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 166(1), 263-303.