{
 "@context": "https://schema.org",
 "@type": "DefinedTerm",
 "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/personal-jurisdiction",
 "identifier": "kaal:entity:personal-jurisdiction",
 "name": "Personal jurisdiction",
 "termCode": "personal-jurisdiction",
 "inDefinedTermSet": {
  "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/index.json"
 },
 "author": {
  "@type": "Person",
  "name": "Wulf A. Kaal",
  "identifier": "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0757-275X"
 },
 "dateModified": "2026-07-29",
 "canonicalForm": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/personal-jurisdiction.md",
 "sha256": "b97029f4fe9057ee5375de1e0d7aed73a13476d6781fc9598d52d3c5c819582b",
 "additionalProperty": [
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "status",
   "value": "derived"
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "claim_count",
   "value": 2
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "work_count",
   "value": 1
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "year_span",
   "value": [
    "2017",
    "2017"
   ]
  },
  {
   "@type": "PropertyValue",
   "name": "non_current_claims",
   "value": 0
  }
 ],
 "subjectOf": [
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2992962-004",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:2992962-004",
   "text": "Personal jurisdiction technically still applies to parties transacting in encrypted distributed smart contracts, but the practicability of enforcement is impossible because physical identifiers are separated from the encrypted distributed contracts.",
   "abstract": "While technically personal jurisdiction would still apply to parties transacting in encrypted distributed smart contracts, the practicability of enforcement is impossible given the separation of physical identifiers and encrypted distributed smart contracts.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962",
   "datePublished": "2017",
   "claim_type": "failure",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": true,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "parties anonymized through public-key encryption and virtual private networks"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "80b92e67594394e38af41b769327936833de8e25d6cf3def966a6ba13bc83d17",
   "status": "current"
  },
  {
   "@type": "Claim",
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2992962-013",
   "identifier": "kaal:claim:2992962-013",
   "text": "Proving personal jurisdiction over smart contracting parties by physical presence, domicile or place of business, consent, or minimum contacts becomes impossible, because none of these elements are known of the parties to a smart contract.",
   "abstract": "To illustrate this point, proving personal jurisdiction by means of 1. Physical Presence, 2. Domicile/Place of Business, 3. Consent, and 4. Minimum Contacts becomes impossible as none of these elements are known of the parties in a smart contract.",
   "citation": "Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962",
   "datePublished": "2017",
   "claim_type": "failure",
   "confidence": "argued",
   "is_failure_mode": true,
   "scope_conditions": [
    "smart contracts where parties are anonymized by public-key encryption and VPNs"
   ],
   "source_pdf_sha256": "80b92e67594394e38af41b769327936833de8e25d6cf3def966a6ba13bc83d17",
   "status": "current"
  }
 ],
 "description": "2 claims in the published works of Wulf A. Kaal carry the concept tag 'personal-jurisdiction'. Derived node: a roster, not an adjudicated definition."
}