The future of contract law: Three conversations at the Cape

R. Brownsword
{"title":"The future of contract law: Three conversations at the Cape","authors":"R. Brownsword","doi":"10.47348/acta/2021/a1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This contribution considers the future of the English law of contract in the form of three conversations that are alert to the disruptive impact of technologies on both the content of legal rules and the way that lawyers think – and indeed on the kind of conversations that lawyers have with one another. The first conversation is concerned with ‘coherence’ in contract law, with the application of general principles to novel fact situations and to new phenomena, with the smoothing of tensions within the law, and with the internal integrity of legal doctrine. The second conversation focuses on a tension between, on the one hand, what may be called a traditional private law ‘coherentist’ concern for doctrinal integrity and the primacy of principle over policy and, on the other hand, a more ‘regulatory’ approach to contracts, especially to consumer contracts, in which policy and instrumental rationality prevail. The third conversation focuses on the use of emerging transactional technologies (such as blockchain-supported smart contracts and AI) that have the potential to displace the rules and principles of contract law. Instead of legal code governing transactions, might we find that technological coding does all the work, making, performing and enforcing ‘contracts’? Each conversation suggests a different future for contract law. The first conversation suggests that contract law will have difficulty in living up to the private law ideal of coherence; the second suggests that coherentism will struggle to survive as it is challenged by an increasingly regulatory approach to the governance of transactions; and the third suggests that, in a world of smart transactional technologies, there is a serious question mark about the relevance of contract law as a body of rules that governs transactions.","PeriodicalId":90407,"journal":{"name":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/acta/2021/a1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This contribution considers the future of the English law of contract in the form of three conversations that are alert to the disruptive impact of technologies on both the content of legal rules and the way that lawyers think – and indeed on the kind of conversations that lawyers have with one another. The first conversation is concerned with ‘coherence’ in contract law, with the application of general principles to novel fact situations and to new phenomena, with the smoothing of tensions within the law, and with the internal integrity of legal doctrine. The second conversation focuses on a tension between, on the one hand, what may be called a traditional private law ‘coherentist’ concern for doctrinal integrity and the primacy of principle over policy and, on the other hand, a more ‘regulatory’ approach to contracts, especially to consumer contracts, in which policy and instrumental rationality prevail. The third conversation focuses on the use of emerging transactional technologies (such as blockchain-supported smart contracts and AI) that have the potential to displace the rules and principles of contract law. Instead of legal code governing transactions, might we find that technological coding does all the work, making, performing and enforcing ‘contracts’? Each conversation suggests a different future for contract law. The first conversation suggests that contract law will have difficulty in living up to the private law ideal of coherence; the second suggests that coherentism will struggle to survive as it is challenged by an increasingly regulatory approach to the governance of transactions; and the third suggests that, in a world of smart transactional technologies, there is a serious question mark about the relevance of contract law as a body of rules that governs transactions.
合同法的未来:在好望角的三次对话
这篇文章以三种对话的形式考虑了英国合同法的未来,这些对话对技术对法律规则内容和律师思考方式的破坏性影响——以及律师彼此之间的对话类型——都保持警惕。第一个对话是关于合同法中的“连贯性”,关于一般原则在新的事实情况和新现象中的应用,关于法律内部紧张关系的平滑,以及法律学说的内部完整性。第二次对话关注的是一种紧张关系,一方面,可以被称为传统私法的“一致性”关注教义完整性和原则高于政策,另一方面,对合同,特别是对消费者合同,更“监管”的方法,其中政策和工具理性占主导地位。第三次对话的重点是使用新兴的交易技术(如区块链支持的智能合约和人工智能),这些技术有可能取代合同法的规则和原则。我们可能会发现,技术编码代替了管理交易的法律代码,完成了所有的工作,制定、执行和执行“合同”?每一次对话都预示着合同法的不同未来。第一个对话表明,合同法将难以达到私法一致性的理想;第二种观点认为,一致性将难以生存,因为它受到交易治理日益受到监管的挑战;第三点表明,在智能交易技术的世界里,合同法作为管理交易的一系列规则的相关性存在一个严重的问号。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信