Not every smart contract qualifies as a legally binding contract — this is the central argument of this legal analysis aimed at lawyers and law students navigating blockchain-based transactions. The piece distinguishes between 'legal smart contracts' (code-based arrangements that satisfy traditional contract formation requirements) and 'non-legal smart contracts' (automated systems like liquidity pools or staking mechanisms that produce economic outcomes without creating enforceable rights). Traditional contract law elements — offer, acceptance, intention, consideration, capacity, and certainty — still apply regardless of whether terms are expressed in code. Blockchain introduces new complications around pseudonymity, decentralization, immutability, jurisdictional indeterminacy, and the mechanics of offer and acceptance. The article also surveys two regulatory approaches: the adaptive model (UK, US, Switzerland, UAE) and the legislative recognition model (Malta, Belarus, Italy). It firmly rejects the 'code is law' argument, noting that courts adjudicate rights, fraud, duress, and mistake — functions code cannot perform.
