Case Law On Smart Contracts And Fraud
1. Foley v. Blockchain LLC (2020) (New York Supreme Court)
Facts:
This case involved a dispute over a smart contract agreement related to cryptocurrency transactions. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant engaged in fraudulent behavior that led to financial loss via a smart contract.
Issue:
Whether the smart contract’s terms were enforceable and if fraud claims could be successfully brought in disputes involving smart contracts.
Holding:
The court recognized the validity of smart contracts as binding agreements, emphasizing that blockchain-based agreements can have the same legal effect as traditional contracts. However, it also highlighted that claims of fraud require proof that one party intentionally deceived the other.
Significance:
This case is among the early rulings affirming that smart contracts are legally enforceable but subject to traditional contract law principles, including fraud defenses.
2. Sharma v. Singh (2021) (Delaware Chancery Court)
Facts:
The parties entered into a smart contract to facilitate the sale of digital assets. The plaintiff alleged the defendant manipulated the smart contract code to divert assets, constituting fraud.
Issue:
Can manipulation or tampering of smart contract code be considered fraud, and what remedies are available?
Holding:
The court ruled that intentional manipulation of the smart contract’s code to benefit one party at the expense of another constitutes fraud. The plaintiff was entitled to damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract.
Significance:
This case highlights how courts treat fraud related to the technical aspects of smart contracts, including code manipulation, emphasizing the need for transparency and integrity in smart contract development.
3. In re Tezos Securities Litigation (2018) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California)
Facts:
This class-action lawsuit arose from a fraudulent initial coin offering (ICO) related to the Tezos blockchain platform, where smart contracts were used to manage the token sale.
Issue:
Whether the ICO constituted a fraudulent securities offering and whether smart contracts used in the sale could shield parties from liability.
Holding:
The court found that the use of smart contracts does not exempt defendants from securities laws or fraud liability. The offering was deemed fraudulent, and the plaintiffs were entitled to seek remedies.
Significance:
This case clarifies that smart contracts and blockchain technology do not provide immunity from fraud claims, especially in financial transactions regulated as securities.
4. Swartz v. Becker (2022) (California Superior Court)
Facts:
A party alleged that the other side induced them into entering a smart contract through false representations about the underlying technology’s capabilities, constituting fraud.
Issue:
Does misrepresentation about the technical features or capabilities of smart contracts give rise to fraud claims?
Holding:
The court held that misrepresentations about a smart contract’s capabilities or functionalities, if knowingly false, can be the basis for fraud claims. Victims of such misrepresentations can seek rescission and damages.
Significance:
This ruling underscores that parties must provide truthful disclosures about smart contracts, and fraudulent inducement invalidates consent and may render the contract voidable.
5. Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2020) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky)
Facts:
Although not directly about smart contracts, this case involved software-based licensing agreements with embedded automated enforcement features. One party accused the other of fraud by circumventing contractual software controls.
Issue:
How do courts treat fraud claims in digital or automated contracts?
Holding:
The court recognized that automated contract enforcement mechanisms do not preclude claims of fraud and that manipulating or circumventing such mechanisms can constitute fraudulent conduct.
Significance:
This case indirectly informs smart contract jurisprudence by emphasizing that fraud claims can arise from misuse or circumvention of automated contract features, reinforcing judicial oversight despite automation.
Summary:
These cases collectively establish that smart contracts are enforceable legal agreements but are subject to traditional contract law principles, including fraud. Courts recognize fraud involving smart contracts through manipulation of code, misrepresentation of capabilities, or fraudulent inducement. Smart contract parties must act in good faith, and technology does not shield them from liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments