kaal:position:2026-07-31-6081

Do Smart Contracts Need New Conflict-of-Laws Rules? presents the following source proposition: However, it is often claimed that DLT features, which are immersed in a digital world, cannot be localised or have any connection with a traditional legal order. This proposition is pertinent to Kaal's source-bound claim that 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. The proposed response is an extension: the relationship should remain limited to the retrieved source proposition and the mapped Kaal claim unless fuller source review supports a broader conclusion.

• The response is limited to the retrieved source proposition and mapped Kaal claim unless fuller source review supports a broader conclusion.
• External evidence level: abstract indexed.
• Mapping review tier: moderate-confidence claim review.
• Primary mapping confidence: 0.4091.
• The source-to-claim mapping remains explicitly ambiguous and is published with that limitation.

Do Smart Contracts Need New Conflict-of-Laws Rules?

kaal:claim:2992962-018
Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962
Source PDF sha256: 80b92e67594394e38af41b769327936833de8e25d6cf3def966a6ba13bc83d17

Evidence: abstract indexed
Review tier: moderate-confidence claim review
Mapping confidence: 0.4091
Mapping ambiguous: true

law-and-legal-systemssmart-contractshistorical-responsescholarly-literatureopenalex

Affirmed in kaal-review:2026-07-31:streaming-etl-0003 on 2026-07-31. Review record.

Canonical markdown sha256: 7ae95e6655bcdeb1a29f7110b0a7f0cc7c58f9b65e04b1af16d6c46262348536
curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-07-31-6081.md | sha256sum