> then it may become profitable (and legal) to employ talented hackers to go around cracking contracts.
Replace 'hackers' with 'lawyers' or 'accountants' and that's already true in our present system.
Replace 'hackers' with 'lawyers' or 'accountants' and that's already true in our present system.
“Technicalities” in general are a lot less of a thing than TV shows would lead you to believe
The common moniker to9 not take a contract verbatim is not codified in law as such, I guess. And if it were, it would be ironically self defeating. I don't know US Law precisely, but Germany has BGB § 242 Leistung nach Treu und Glauben - liability by trust and obligation (with respect to the customs of trade).
Translating this title shows how deep the connection runs. "The spirit of the law" as you imply strikes me as something coined at least in roman times if not koine or older. The law is actually very strongly exploiting misunderstandings. The ruling theme is still that vulgar language is wrong, the obligation to interpret code is on the subjects and it is satisfied by the availability and ability of lawyers. The exploitation is giving the judicial branch an advantage that is unfair to the point that lawyers are likened to devils. The downside is that it gives lawyers (including judges) a hard time as well.
The problem with smart contracts remains the same, that limit on expressiveness extends to computer code, that cannot express questions of morality any better.
Automated transactions may have useful applications, but seeking fairness is not one of them.
The way programmatic code can improve on it by automated tools is burdened with the same level of complexity, if not higher than Natural Language. But Smart Contracts are, as the name implies, intended to be used for small, manageable bits of code. Never mind codes that are too big to handle for a single person, bugs from a single typo for example could still happen. There's simply two sides to that. Either strict enforcement is thought to promote improvements in code quality. Or lenient apologies hope to promote amicable values, as far as trust is concerned, e.g. if due diligence also implies to inform whether a likely mistake was intended or not.
If the other party knew of the mistake that may be a "Versteckter Einigungsmangel" (covered up, hidden; Agreement; lack of, deficiency - hidden deficiency of agreement). In that sense no smart contract would be enforcable, because the conscious decision is deferred - post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The deciding difference is, if there's an automatic arbitrage bot for example, and it's not aware of the mistake, the creator has no liability to check for mistakes, I suppose. Whereas if exploits are targeted at buggy programs, that's a different matter.
The deciding factor would be the custom of the trade. Custom comes from costume. So if a foolish script kiddy exploits a huge bank they will suit up and claim higher right from custom. Vice versa, a kid exploited by automatic gambling bots e.g. will be blamed for wearing a suit to big for it's size. /s
Furthermore, some areas of law seem more open to "Technicalities" than others. It's hard to believe that tax structures like https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double-irish-with-a-dut... were part of the intent of the law, though they are compatible with the word of it. The difference between avoidance and evasion often rests on a technicality.
Finding ways to subvert the intent whilst remaining within the 'rules', is the very essence of hacking. No one said the username input couldn't contain an SQL statement?