When Code Performs the Promise: Smart Contracts & the Carbolic Smokeball In 1893, a company offered £100 to anyone who used its product and still became ill. In 2026, code makes the same promise and …

CoinsBench's platform is  dedicated to providing insights and analysis on cryptocurrency markets, blockchain technology, and digital assets. Through articles, market reports, and expert analysis, CoinsBench offers insights into cryptocurrency trends, trading strategies, and investment opportunities. Readers can learn about blockchain projects, decentralized finance (DeFi), and cryptocurrency regulations to make informed decisions in the crypto market.

Coins Bench

Drawing a parallel between the landmark 1893 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company case and modern smart contracts, this piece explores how self-executing blockchain agreements challenge foundational contract law doctrines. In Carlill, performance triggered a legal obligation; in smart contracts, performance is the obligation. This eliminates the traditional gap between promise and execution, rendering remedies like injunctions largely unavailable and shifting legal focus to post-execution correction via restitution and equitable doctrines. The author argues code should be seen as an execution layer while law remains the interpretive layer — capable of overriding automated outcomes when they are unjust. The DAO exploit is cited as a case where technically correct code produced widely unacceptable results. The piece concludes that law's role is shifting from enforcement to interpretation, from promise to consequence, and that different legal traditions (common law vs. civil law) may resolve these tensions differently.