# Courts `kaal:entity:courts` **Status.** derived This node is assembled mechanically from the 9 claims that carry the concept tag `courts`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself. ## Every claim under this term 9 claims across 3 works, 2016 to 2017. **2016** - [2831040-016](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2831040-016) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Addressing the regulatory issues created by innovation outpacing law through the judiciary is insufficient in the face of exponential innovation, because increasing evidence shows courts cannot sufficiently counterbalance the shortcomings of the legislative system. > Addressing the regulatory issues associated with innovation outpacing law via the judiciary is insufficient in the face of exponential innovation. Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation for Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831040 - [2831040-017](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2831040-017) [mechanism/argued] *(failure mode)* -- The doctrine of stare decisis and judicial adherence to precedent decided decades or centuries earlier mean the court system is structurally a suspension system for rapid change, built to supply stability and predictability rather than speed. > The doctrine of stare decisis and the courts' adherence to and application of precedent decided decades or centuries earlier illustrate that the court system is actually structured as a suspension system for rapid change in order to provide stability and predictability. Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation for Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831040 - [2831040-018](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2831040-018) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Litigation in the court system can take years, which increases the likelihood that courts will not react in a timely manner, much less in real time, to exponential innovation. > Litigation in the court system can take years, which increases the likelihood that the court system will not react in a timely manner, much less in real-time, to exponential innovation. Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation for Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831040 **2017** - [2992962-010](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2992962-010) [empirical/evidenced] -- The authors treat the near absence of decided case law on crypto smart contracting disputes as evidence that the existing legal infrastructure is too far removed from crypto dispute resolution, or incapable of adequately addressing the disputes crypto transactions generate. > We see this lack of existing case law in the context of crypto smart contracting disputes as evidence that the existing legal infrastructure may be too far removed from crypto dispute resolution or incapable of adequately addressing the types of disputes generated by crypto transactions. Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962 - [2992962-017](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2992962-017) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Because smart contracts are coded for computer programming rather than for a human observer, courts may not be able to hypothesize a reasonable human's interpretation of a given smart contract. > Because of the emphasis on code for computer programming (and artificial intelligence), courts may not be able to hypothesize a reasonable human's interpretation of a given smart contract. Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962 - [2992962-018](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2992962-018) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- 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. > 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. Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962 - [2992962-019](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2992962-019) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Real world court decisions on smart contract disputes, even where attainable, may not carry the same legitimacy and authority for the parties as intra-blockchain dispute resolution mechanisms. > In other words, real world court decisions even if attainable may not have the same legitimacy and authority as other intra-blockchain dispute resolution mechanism may have. Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962 - [2992962-021](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2992962-021) [normative/argued] -- Because courts cannot effectuate resolutions to disputes arising from blockchain based smart contracts, blockchain based resolution mechanisms are the only possible recourse for smart contract disputes. > Therefore, blockchain-based resolution mechanisms are the only possible recourse for smart contract disputes. Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962 - [3002908-008](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3002908-008) [empirical/evidenced] *(failure mode)* -- As of publication, no American or European court had recognized blockchain technology or scrutinized its applications, leaving it unclear how courts will treat the technology. > American and European courts have not yet recognized blockchain technology or addressed its applications.. A review of published court opinions suggests that no court at the time of publication of this article had to review, assess, or scrutinize the uses and applications of blockchain technology. Wulf A. Kaal, Marco Dell'Erba, Blockchain Innovation in Private Investment Funds - A Comparative Analysis of the United States and (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3002908 ## Verify Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust. curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/courts.md | sha256sum **Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.