PROBLEMS OF DEFINING THE CONCEPT AND LEGAL NATURE OF CONTRACT IN THE DIGITAL ERA: FEATURES OF BLOCKCHAIN-BASED AGREEMENTS

Аннотация

This paper explores how the traditional concept and legal nature of contracts are being transformed in the digital era, particularly under the influence of blockchain technologies. Special attention is given to the distinctive features, enforceability, and legal Keywords: challengesposedbyblockchain-basedcontracts. contract law, digitalization, blockchain, smart contracts, legal certainty, automation,privatelaw. The rapid development of digital technologies has triggered a profound transformation of private law institutions, particularly the concept and structure of contracts. Historically, a contract has been defined as a legally binding agreement between two or more parties, concluded through offerandacceptance, andenforceablebylaw. Withthe transition to coded formats, the legal system is increasingly confronted with the question of whether algorithmic declarations of will can be treated as equivalent to traditional expressions of consent. This development necessitates an analysis of how digital tools alter the conventional understandingoflegalintent. In the digital era, consent may no longer be expressed through handwritten signatures or oral declarations, but instead through clicks, electronic signatures, or even lines of computercode.Thisshiftnecessitatesalegalreassessmentofwhat constitutesmutualassent, especially when algorithms autonomously execute obligations without further human input. In this context, smart contracts, self-executing agreements with terms directly written into code,representanewparadigmincontractualrelations. Smart contracts operate within blockchain systems, such as Ethereum, and ensure automated execution of contractual terms once pre-set conditions are met. These agreements are immutable, transparent, and decentralized, meaning they do not rely on a central authority or intermediary. According to a 2024 report by Statista, which provides statistical data on global technology trends, the global market for blockchain-based smart contracts is projected to reach over $500 billion by 2030[1]. Moreover, the number of smart contract transactions surpassed 1.5 billion in 2023, reflecting exponential growth in sectors such as finance, logistics, and e-commerce. In Uzbekistan, the number of fintech startups utilizing blockchain technology has grown more than fivefold since 2020, reflecting a rising demand for legally reliable digital solutions. This growth raises practical concerns for legislators and legal practitioners, as traditional frameworks may no longer suffice to ensure legal certainty andenforceabilityinautomatedtransactionalenvironments. In Uzbekistan, the current Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan defines a contract in traditionalterms (Articles 151–166)requiring mutualconsent andwritten ororal expression [2]. Although flexible in interpreting form, the legislation does not yet recognize code-based or automated contractual mechanisms. The Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Electronic 15 Document and Digital Signature” [3] allows legal recognition of electronic contracts and digitalsignaturesbut does notextendthisrecognition tosmart contractsorblockchain-based enforcement. From a comparative perspective, certain jurisdictions have already incorporated blockchain concepts into their legal frameworks. The State of Arizona (USA), for example, passedlegislationin2017affirmingthatsmartcontractsandblockchainsignaturesarelegally enforceable [4]. This statutory recognition provides legal certaintyto blockchain transactions byacknowledgingthatcode-basedagreementscanrepresentvalidlegalobligations. Some jurisdictions, such as Malta and Liechtenstein, have adopted comprehensive frameworks, such as the Maltese Innovative Technology Arrangements and Services Act [5], and the Liechtenstein Blockchain Act [6], which explicitly define legal aspects of smart contractsanddigitaltokens,offeringrobustregulatorymodels. Inthiscontext,itbecomesvitaltoredefinethelegalnatureofcontractsinamannerthat accommodates technical developments while preserving the rule of law. A contract that performs automatically may indeed fulfill its economic function, but from a legal perspective, it remains essential to assess whether such execution aligns with doctrinal requirements of intention, mutual assent, and fairness. These foundational concepts of contract law must continuetoinformhowweassessthelegitimacyofnewdigitalmechanisms. As discussed by Werbach K. and Cornell N. [7], smart contracts require a legal framework that supports interpretation, dispute resolution, and mechanisms for redress. Otherwise, errors in smart contracts could go uncorrected, and parties might be bound to consequencestheydidnotforeseeorintend. This debate is further complicated by the multiplicity of integration models. According to legal studies, smart contracts may exist in three forms: code-only, dual-language (code and natural language), and hybrid models. The hybrid approach, where performance logic is in code, but legal defin