I am in the midst of negotiating an acquisition contract right now (stock purchase agreement, seller&#x27;s financing note &#x2F; stock power, revised shareholders agreement, etc) as an acquiring party. Non-tech, don&#x27;t think most people here would be terribly interested in it.<p>Based on the low two-digit number of hours I&#x27;ve spent reviewing documents and on the phone with my attorney so far, there are a lot of issues with the core idea of this (but IANAL).<p>&gt; <i>Where there are disputes, a blockchain can hold an objective record of events making dispute resolution relatively trivial</i><p>Good luck. That&#x27;s sort of the point of contracts in the first place. To easily be able to say you agreed to something 8 years from now when a partnership&#x2F;agreement has gone totally pear-shaped. And we see how well that&#x27;s worked out.<p>&gt; On didactic contracts: <i>mapping out in detail every aspect of human behaviour</i><p>Good luck ad infinitum. That&#x27;s just never going to happen. And this is why the first quoted passage is equally unrealistic. There will always be a nebulous area of a contract, the question is just how big that area is, how nebulous it is, and whether you&#x27;re willing to accept that v. spend the additional resources to clarify it. Which with any negotiation increases the odds the other party will walk away.<p>&gt; <i>Since traditional didactic contracts are mostly unread, they do not in most cases involve active consent, which has moral hazard.</i><p>Every single word on every page of anything that needs to be signed has been read at least a dozen times by all attorneys and non-attorneys in this transaction. I&#x27;m not saying everyone reads every didactic contract but even busy people do not just take their attorney&#x27;s word for it.