法律散文用法Corda [英] Legal Prose Usage Corda

问题描述

这是乔尔先前回答的法律散文问题的后续问题。（分别创建）请求中的问题）

It's a follow up question on previously answered legal prose question by Joel.(created separate question on request)

@LegalProseReference(uri = "foo.bar.com/my-legal-doc.html")
public class MyContract implements Contract {
    @Override
    public void verify(LedgerTransaction tx) {
        // Contract logic.
    }
}

如答案所示，我得到了这份法律文件-legal-doc.html。那么，如果verify方法没有引发异常会怎样？如果验证确实引发异常，会发生什么情况，我会向阅读此法律文档的用户显示此法律文档。那就是为什么合同失败了？正如答案中提到的，法律合同优先->因此，如果verify方法引发异常，那么法律文档如何优先？我仔细阅读了这份文件，找出问题所在并手动验证了TX？

As the answer suggests, I got this legal doc my-legal-doc.html. so what happens in case the verify method doesn't throw an exception? and what happens in case verify does throw an exception do I show this legal doc to the user that read this legal doc. That this is why the contract failed? as mentioned in answer legal contract takes precedence-> so if verify method throws exception then how does legal doc takes precedence? I go through this doc find what's wrong and manually verify the tx? also how manually?

推荐答案

理想情况下，合同代码和法律散文应该完全吻合。它们应该是相同的，除了一个以代码表示合同，另一个以法律术语表示合同。

Ideally, the contract code and the legal prose should be in perfect alignment. They should be identical, except that one expresses the contract in code, and the other expresses the contract in legal terms.

但是，假设您发现其中存在一个错误合同代码，这意味着该合同代码实际上并未完全反映法律散文。这样做的想法是，您可以在法庭上使用法律文书文件，以使交易撤回，前提是您实际上是根据法律文书文件订立协议，而该文件未正确反映在合同代码。

However, suppose you find that there is a bug in the contract code that means that the contract code doesn't actually fully reflect the legal prose. The idea is that you could use the legal prose document in a court of law to have the transaction reversed, on the basis that you were actually entering into an agreement on the basis of the legal prose document, and this document was not correctly reflected in the contract code.

例如，假设您发现 AssetContract 中的错误控制了 AssetStates 允许交易对手在未经您同意的情况下转移自己的资产（实际上，我们希望合同代码错误不那么明显）。您可以上法庭，并使用法律散文来证明这是合同中的错误，而不是其真实意图。

For example, suppose you discover that a bug in the AssetContract governing AssetStates allowed counterparties to transfer themselves your assets without your agreement (in practice, we'd expect the contract code bugs to be less obvious than this). You could go to court and use the legal prose document to prove that this was a bug in the contract, rather than its true intent.

但是，最终取决于各个国家的法律体系，无论是合同法还是法律散文，都为优先。目前，我们希望法律文书能够定义合同条款。将来随着法院对法治理念的适应程度提高，这种情况可能会改变。

However, it's ultimately up to the individual countries' legal systems whether the contract code or legal prose takes precedence. Currently, we'd expect the legal prose to define the terms of the contract. This may change in the future as courts become more comfortable with the idea of code-as-law.

这篇关于法律散文用法Corda的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！