{
 "@context": "https://schema.org",
 "@type": "Claim",
 "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-08-241",
 "identifier": "kaal:position:2026-08-08-241",
 "additionalType": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/schema.json#AffirmedPositionClaim",
 "name": "Streaming Code Is Law But Is Code A Contract Smart Contracts Under The Indian Contract Act 1Eed8A3Dcf",
 "text": "Code Is Law but Is Code a Contract? concludes that the Indian Contract Act requirements of offer and acceptance, consideration, capacity, free consent, and legality can each be satisfied in a smart-contract interaction when interpreted in light of blockchain architecture. This directly qualifies Kaal's disruption claim. The abstract does not establish equivalent treatment elsewhere or resolve flexibility and judicial-oversight concerns.",
 "author": {
  "@type": "Person",
  "name": "Wulf A. Kaal",
  "identifier": "https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7840-1847"
 },
 "datePublished": "2026-08-08",
 "dateModified": "2026-08-08",
 "creativeWorkStatus": "Affirmed",
 "responseType": "qualification",
 "keywords": [
  "smart-contracts",
  "historical-response",
  "scholarly-literature",
  "crossref"
 ],
 "scope_conditions": [
  "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: substantively reviewed abstract-level qualification.",
  "Primary mapping confidence: 0.62.",
  "The primary mapping cleared the automated ambiguity test; substantive scope remains review-bound.",
  "Evidence is limited to an exact proposition in a Crossref-indexed abstract; full text was not reviewed.",
  "No relationship is treated as external endorsement, citation, causation, or validation of a broader Kaal claim.",
  "The source concludes that the Indian Contract Act requirements of offer and acceptance, consideration, capacity, free consent, and legality can each be satisfied in a smart-contract interaction when interpreted in light of blockchain architecture. This is a direct jurisdiction-specific qualification of Kaal's disruption claim, while it does not establish equivalent treatment in other jurisdictions or resolve flexibility and judicial-oversight concerns."
 ],
 "currentDebate": {
  "name": "“CODE IS LAW” BUT IS CODE A CONTRACT? - SMART CONTRACTS UNDER THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 AND THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000",
  "url": "https://doi.org/10.65393/ijlrv6i746"
 },
 "extends": {
  "identifier": "kaal:claim:5554218-001",
  "url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/5554218-001",
  "citation": "Furrer Andreas, Wulf A. Kaal, Universal Digital Law Codex (UDLC) Building the Legal Infrastructure for the Digital Era (2025). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5554218",
  "paper": "Furrer Andreas, Wulf A. Kaal, Universal Digital Law Codex (UDLC) Building the Legal Infrastructure for the Digital Era",
  "authors": [
   "Wulf A. Kaal"
  ],
  "year": "2025",
  "ssrn": "https://ssrn.com/abstract=5554218",
  "source_pdf_sha256": "55738b4035a91b70aa2ddaa127552fe4b373ec641afee2719fbdcabebdcbea44"
 },
 "isBasedOn": [
  {
   "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/5554218-001"
  },
  {
   "@type": "CreativeWork",
   "name": "“CODE IS LAW” BUT IS CODE A CONTRACT? - SMART CONTRACTS UNDER THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 AND THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000",
   "url": "https://doi.org/10.65393/ijlrv6i746"
  }
 ],
 "batch_id": "kaal-review:2026-08-08:continuous-crossref-0028-global-unique-all-0042-reviewed-v1",
 "review_provenance": "https://kaal-signal-desk.wulf577462.chatgpt.site/#review",
 "publicationStatus": "public",
 "recordTypeNote": "Dated commentary position extending a scholarly corpus claim. Not a verbatim claim extracted from the paper.",
 "isPartOf": {
  "@id": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/index.json"
 },
 "version": "1.0",
 "canonical_url": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-08-241",
 "canonicalForm": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-08-08-241.md",
 "candidateId": "kaal:response-draft:2026-08-08:634f7a919173c03b908b",
 "evidenceLevel": "abstract indexed",
 "reviewTier": "substantively reviewed abstract-level qualification",
 "mappingConfidence": 0.62,
 "mappingAmbiguous": false,
 "mappingMethod": "complete-corpus source-proposition mechanism and scope adjudication",
 "mappingWhyRelevant": "The source concludes that the Indian Contract Act requirements of offer and acceptance, consideration, capacity, free consent, and legality can each be satisfied in a smart-contract interaction when interpreted in light of blockchain architecture. This is a direct jurisdiction-specific qualification of Kaal's disruption claim, while it does not establish equivalent treatment in other jurisdictions or resolve flexibility and judicial-oversight concerns.",
 "sourceProvenance": {
  "source": "crossref",
  "sourceRecordId": "10.65393/ijlrv6i746",
  "queryId": "concept:c8f592cb6b0b",
  "queryText": "smart contract enforceability",
  "canonicalUrl": "https://doi.org/10.65393/ijlrv6i746",
  "doi": "10.65393/ijlrv6i746",
  "externalIds": {
   "DOI": "10.65393/ijlrv6i746",
   "Crossref": "10.65393/ijlrv6i746"
  },
  "retrievedAt": "2026-08-10T01:19:33.113Z",
  "providerPage": 1,
  "rawObservationSha256": "40d291c0ff8d3772a85dce344d3ec56dfe091048aad0d065232f4d001d0510af",
  "inputSnapshotSha256": "48fbab6a996eacc09b9765f4ab33a930f939eef60eeb880313d5cd601bcb85ae",
  "inputLine": 13989,
  "chunkId": "crossref-00001",
  "workId": "work:doi:10.65393/ijlrv6i746",
  "workAuthors": [
   "KHUSHI PATEL"
  ],
  "workPublishedAt": "2026-04-30",
  "identityKeys": [
   "doi:10.65393/ijlrv6i746",
   "crossref:10.65393/ijlrv6i746",
   "url:https://doi.org/10.65393/ijlrv6i746",
   "title:d1180e0ce633809a9887598f",
   "proposition:28fd2d84e02d1b40ede1c3929c9b104ab7d158fd8202724725d58dc0cb870eb4"
  ],
  "sourceProposition": "The analysis demonstrates that the ICA’s core requirements — offer and acceptance, consideration, capacity, free consent, and legality — can each be satisfied in a smart contract interaction when interpreted in light of the blockchain’s technical architecture.",
  "sourcePropositionSha256": "3e0fc04d735190b7699be26d068320aa89edf49f5115897ee6910b23b5c4cdea",
  "sourcePropositionIndex": 2,
  "claimMappings": [
   {
    "claimId": "kaal:claim:5554218-001",
    "claimUrl": "https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/5554218-001",
    "rank": 1,
    "confidence": 0.62,
    "method": "complete-corpus source-proposition mechanism and scope adjudication",
    "whyRelevant": "The source concludes that the Indian Contract Act requirements of offer and acceptance, consideration, capacity, free consent, and legality can each be satisfied in a smart-contract interaction when interpreted in light of blockchain architecture. This is a direct jurisdiction-specific qualification of Kaal's disruption claim, while it does not establish equivalent treatment in other jurisdictions or resolve flexibility and judicial-oversight concerns.",
    "ambiguous": false
   }
  ],
  "substantiveReview": {
   "disposition": "retained",
   "reviewVersion": "kaal-continuous-crossref-substantive-review-v1",
   "reviewedAt": "2026-08-10T12:29:00.006Z",
   "reviewer": "Codex continuous substantive reviewer",
   "rationale": "The source concludes that the Indian Contract Act requirements of offer and acceptance, consideration, capacity, free consent, and legality can each be satisfied in a smart-contract interaction when interpreted in light of blockchain architecture. This is a direct jurisdiction-specific qualification of Kaal's disruption claim, while it does not establish equivalent treatment in other jurisdictions or resolve flexibility and judicial-oversight concerns.",
   "limitations": [
    "Evidence is limited to an exact proposition in a Crossref-indexed abstract; full text was not reviewed.",
    "No relationship is treated as external endorsement, citation, causation, or validation of a broader Kaal claim.",
    "The source concludes that the Indian Contract Act requirements of offer and acceptance, consideration, capacity, free consent, and legality can each be satisfied in a smart-contract interaction when interpreted in light of blockchain architecture. This is a direct jurisdiction-specific qualification of Kaal's disruption claim, while it does not establish equivalent treatment in other jurisdictions or resolve flexibility and judicial-oversight concerns."
   ],
   "sourceIdentity": {
    "status": "verified",
    "source": "Crossref REST work record",
    "doi": "10.65393/ijlrv6i746",
    "title": "“CODE IS LAW” BUT IS CODE A CONTRACT? - SMART CONTRACTS UNDER THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 AND THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000",
    "authors": [
     "KHUSHI PATEL"
    ],
    "language": "unavailable",
    "publisher": "Institute of Legal Education",
    "checkedAt": "2026-08-10T12:29:00.006Z",
    "responseBodySha256": "99fe49921453682eafd8803af5c288cdcac2e6da6e9afb5f70a0350f7e609810",
    "providerReceipt": {
     "path": "outputs/historical-backfill-2026-08-08-crossref/raw-receipts/crossref-028-00001.json",
     "sha256": "ea5e007bc6c2bb07edbf0c3a47260156135ef0d08b86ea2e3934a36bce5da09e",
     "byteLength": 2186527
    }
   },
   "independentRationale": "The exact proposition is present in the live Crossref abstract and the deposited reference list contains no Kaal-authored reference; the relationship is limited to the independently stated proposition.",
   "nonOverlap": {
    "candidateIdMatches": 0,
    "canonicalUrlMatches": 0,
    "propositionHashMatches": 0
   }
  }
 },
 "userAffirmation": "Automatically authorized under standing authority receipt kaal-standing-publication-authorization:2026-08-01:hourly-reviewed-batches, SHA-256 e2126054b58bb4e88db65c334ef4fc8ae78dcaadc63543c408133c4eefceb9b1, limited to this substantively reviewed batch and the unchanged 5,033 scholarly claims.",
 "sha256": "33a25f0b639ad94699c3f9d16d914647465f5231e60b613abcfa94864cb3446d"
}