The advent of new technology brings along with it the murkiness of how the American legal system will treat such technology. Before the rise of blockchain for instance, businesses were uncertain how courts would treat electronic records and signatures until the federal legislature enacted the E-Sign Act on June 30, 2000. To provide even more clarity to businesses, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws drafted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (the “UETA”) to provide states with a framework to enact laws governing the enforceability of electronic records and signatures. Now, almost every state in the U.S. has adopted some form of the UETA, and industry heavily relies on electronic contracting.
The legislative process has already begun for blockchain technology. Arizona and Tennessee both enacted laws stating that (1) a blockchain technology signature is considered an electronic signature, and (2) a blockchain technology record is considered an electronic record. Further, these laws say that courts may not deny a contract legal validity because the contract contains a “smart contract” term. Other states are also attempting to adapt their current commercial laws to blockchain technologies. Wyoming, for example, is breaking ground by addressing blockchain’s impact on the attachment, perfection, and priority rules of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Similarly, Delaware and Maryland have amended their general corporation and limited liability company laws to permit the use of blockchain technologies for creating and maintaining company records with respect to equity interests.
Continue reading: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/legal-implications-blockchain-supply-chain-what-s-law-got-to-do-it
The legislative process has already begun for blockchain technology. Arizona and Tennessee both enacted laws stating that (1) a blockchain technology signature is considered an electronic signature, and (2) a blockchain technology record is considered an electronic record. Further, these laws say that courts may not deny a contract legal validity because the contract contains a “smart contract” term. Other states are also attempting to adapt their current commercial laws to blockchain technologies. Wyoming, for example, is breaking ground by addressing blockchain’s impact on the attachment, perfection, and priority rules of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Similarly, Delaware and Maryland have amended their general corporation and limited liability company laws to permit the use of blockchain technologies for creating and maintaining company records with respect to equity interests.
Continue reading: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/legal-implications-blockchain-supply-chain-what-s-law-got-to-do-it
