DeFi Common Sense: Crypto‐backed Lending in Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person ('CHEFPIERRE').
One of the selling points of cryptoassets has been the ability to subject them to so‐called 'smart contracts' embedded upon blockchains; yet, despite numerous common law decisions accepting cryptoassets as property, until Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person ('CHEFPIERRE') no courts have had the occ...
| Publicado en: | Modern Law Review Vol. 86; no. 5; pp. 1278 - 1294 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Sep2023
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=169944052&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 169944052 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00267961 D8H jtl: Modern Law Review issn: 00267961 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Sep2023 vid: 86 iid: 5 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 169944052 10.1111/1468-2230.12804 ppf: 1278 ppct: 16 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 255KB tig: atl: DeFi Common Sense: Crypto‐backed Lending in Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person ('CHEFPIERRE'). aug: au: Chan, Timothy Low, Kelvin F.K. su: Actions & defenses (Law) Blockchains Cryptocurrencies Contracts Commercial law sug: subj: Actions & defenses (Law) Blockchains Cryptocurrencies Contracts Commercial law ab: One of the selling points of cryptoassets has been the ability to subject them to so‐called 'smart contracts' embedded upon blockchains; yet, despite numerous common law decisions accepting cryptoassets as property, until Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person ('CHEFPIERRE') no courts have had the occasion to consider how such property (in this case, an NFT) interact with these 'smart contracts'. The case considers 'smart contracts' in the context of decentralised finance (DeFi), thus also raising questions concerning the legal effectiveness and prudence of using cryptoassets as objects of security. Although the non‐participation of the defendant meant that the court was deprived of full arguments, the judgment remains worthy of consideration, both for what the court does consider – specifically, criticisms of the Ainsworth test of property – and what it does not. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Modern Law Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Modern Law Review holder: Wiley-Blackwell dt: @attributes: year: 2023 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|