# kaal:claim:2992962-018

**Claim.** To institute traditional remedies where a smart contract transaction disadvantages one of the parties, courts would have to change the blockchain, and that is computationally and practically impossible.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- transactions already executed and added to an immutable blockchain

**Source quote.**

> courts would have to change the blockchain in order to institute remedies in the traditional sense that could pertain to the smart contract in question. However, that scenario is computationally and practically impossible.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, *Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution* (2017), c) Limited Regulatory Oversight, page 40

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `80b92e67594394e38af41b769327936833de8e25d6cf3def966a6ba13bc83d17` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20and%20Calcaterra%20-%202017%20-%20Crypto%20Transaction%20Dispute%20Resolution.pdf

**Failure mode.** immutability-blocks-remedies  (family: smart-contract-rigidity)

**Topics.** law-and-legal-systems, smart-contracts

**Keywords.** remedies, immutability, courts, smart-contracts

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.