# kaal:position:2026-07-31-6081

**Affirmed position.** 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.

**Status.** affirmed  **Published.** 2026-07-31

**Holds when.**

- 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.

**Current debate.** Do Smart Contracts Need New Conflict-of-Laws Rules?: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004514850_019

**Extends.** kaal:claim:2992962-018: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2992962-018

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

**Source PDF sha256.** `80b92e67594394e38af41b769327936833de8e25d6cf3def966a6ba13bc83d17`

**Evidence level.** abstract indexed

**Mapping review tier.** moderate-confidence claim review

**Mapping confidence.** 0.4091  **Mapping ambiguous.** true

**Topics.** law-and-legal-systems, smart-contracts, historical-response, scholarly-literature, openalex

**Provenance.** Affirmed in kaal-review:2026-07-31:streaming-etl-0003 at https://kaal-signal-desk.wulf577462.chatgpt.site/#review.

**Record type.** This is a dated commentary position that extends a scholarly corpus claim. It is not a verbatim claim extracted from the paper.

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the position.