Challenges and Solutions for Establishing the Parties’ Intent in Blockchain-Based Contracts under Iranian and European Law

Authors

    Peyman Moradi Department of Law, Ya.C., Islamic Azad University, Yazd, Iran
    Ghazaleh Kabirabadi * Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Y.C., Islamic Azad University, Yazd, Iran Ghazaleh.kabirabadi@iau.ac.ir
    Majid Dehghan Chenari Department of Law, Bafg.C., Islamic Azad University, Bafgh, Iran
    Mohammad Amini Department of Computer, Ya.C., Islamic Azad University, Yazd, Iran

Keywords:

Blockchain, parties’ intent, smart contract, digital identity verification, Iranian law, European law

Abstract

Blockchain-based contracts, as a new generation of digital obligations, provide a self-executing and decentralized method for structuring contractual relationships, in which the role of human will is fundamentally transformed when confronted with automated mechanisms. In this context, establishing the parties’ intent—one of the identity-defining elements of any legal agreement—faces challenges such as user anonymity, disintermediation, reliance on pre-determined code, and difficulties in identifying the moment and content of consent. The main issue addressed by this research is how a valid and legally attributable intent of the parties can be established in blockchain contracts under Iranian and European law, and what conflicts arise between traditional doctrines of intention and consent and technological mechanisms. This study adopts a descriptive–analytical method with a comparative approach. Data were collected through the examination of statutory instruments, specialized technology regulations, judicial decisions, and up-to-date scholarly literature. The analytical tools include a limited empirical review of sample smart contracts, legal analysis of code, and a comparative interpretation between classical contract law principles and European Union regulations. The findings indicate that although blockchain technology offers transparency, immutable record-keeping, and automation of obligations, shortcomings such as the lack of reliable identity verification, the possibility of programming errors, difficulties in applying traditional theories of intent, and conflicts between code and the parties’ actual will create serious ambiguities in establishing consent. The study proposes the adoption of supplementary regulations on digital identity verification, mandatory inclusion of declaratory layers, the possibility of judicial review of code, and the development of integrated frameworks bridging technology and law, in order to strike a balance between automation and human intent. 

References

Allen, J. (2020). Blockchain and the future of contract law: Challenges in consent and error. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 40(3), 455-478.

Amiri-Moqaddam, M. (2025). A legal study of smart contracts in Iranian private law. Social Sciences Studies, 11(Special Issue 1), 95-100.

Behzadi, H. (2022). The law of smart contracts in Iran: A feasibility analysis and executive challenges. Journal of Modern Law, 12(3), 80-102.

Dehghani-Tafti, M., Afzali-Mehr, M., & Eskini, R. (2022). A comparative study of the legal requirements for designing digital smart contracts in Iranian and French law. Comparative Law Research Quarterly, 6(2), 29-51.

European, C. (2023). Regulation of crypto-assets under MiCA and the revised eIDAS framework.

European, U. (2019). European blockchain strategy: Legal challenges and regulatory framework.

Ferguson, T., & Wright, J. (2018). Coding errors and contractual intent in automated systems. Journal of Law & Digital Technology, 11(2), 145-170.

Greenberg, D. (2022). Digital identity and the eIDAS2 transformation in the EU. European law review, 47(3), 201-225.

Hacker, P. (2021). The semantics of smart contracts: Reconsidering intention in algorithmic contracting. European Review of Private Law, 29(2), 175-210.

Heydari, M. (2021). An examination of the legal nature of blockchain transactions in the Iranian legal system. Law and Technology Quarterly, 5(1), 33-62.

Jafari Langroudi, M. J. (2019). Legal terminology. Ganj-e Danesh.

Karimi, S. (2023). Challenges in the interpretation of smart contracts and the role of parties’ intention. Comparative Law Research Quarterly, 10(4), 55-88.

Kazemi, M. R. (2022). Digital signature and its legal validity in Iranian law. Journal of Modern Law, 14(2), 77-102.

Kuner, C. (2020). Blockchain, identity, and the future of digital trust. Journal of Internet Law, 24(4), 123-145.

Lessig, L. (2006). Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic Books.

Moradi, R. (2023). A critique of the foundations of the validity of blockchain-based contracts in the Iranian legal system. International Journal of Contemporary Law, 9(4), 60-84.

Mousavi, A. (2022). Civil liability of smart contract developers based on Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law. Studies in Jurisprudence and Law of Technology, 5(2), 110-134.

Nazemi, H. (2022). Validation of parties’ intention in digital environments: A novel blockchain-based approach. Journal of Communications and Technology Law, 6(1), 33-59.

Paknejad, F. (2023). A comparative study of the rules of intention and consent in electronic contracts in Iran and the European Union. Private Law Research Quarterly, 18(1), 55-78.

Peltz, M. (2019). Liability and intent in smart contract ecosystems. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 33(1), 78-102.

Raskin, M. (2019). The law and legality of smart contracts. Georgetown Law Technology Review, 3(2), 300-334.

Shafi‘i, A. (2020). A legal analysis of smart contracts and the issue of ascertaining intention. Journal of Private Law Research, 8(3), 121-150.

Smith, J. (2021). Smart contracts and contractual intent: Reconsidering autonomy in blockchain transactions. International Journal of Law and Technology, 15(1), 70-95.

Soleimani, E., & Eskandari, M. (2025). A critical and comparative analysis of the nature of smart contracts in the legal systems of Iran and the United States of America. Legal Civilization, 8(23), 215-240.

Surden, H. (2022). Computable contracts, automation, and the limits of legal interpretation. Stanford Technology Law Review, 25(1), 180-215.

Szabo, N. (1997). Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday, 2(9).

Werbach, K. (2018). The blockchain and the new architecture of trust. MIT Press.

Werbach, K., & Cornell, N. (2017). Contracts ex machina. Duke Law Journal, 67(2), 313-371.

Wright, A., & De Filippi, P. (2019). Blockchain and the law: The rule of code. Harvard University Press.

Yazdan-Panah, H. (2019). Liability of programmers and developers in blockchain-based contracts. Journal of Information Technology and Law, 4(2), 89-114.

Zargari, M. (2021). Legal challenges of self-executing contracts. Legal Research Quarterly, 23(2), 45-72.

Downloads

Published

2027-01-01

Submitted

2026-01-28

Revised

2026-05-20

Accepted

2026-05-27

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Moradi, P. ., Kabirabadi, G., Dehghan Chenari, M. ., & Amini, M. . (2027). Challenges and Solutions for Establishing the Parties’ Intent in Blockchain-Based Contracts under Iranian and European Law. Legal Studies in Digital Age, 1-13. https://jlsda.com/index.php/lsda/article/view/391

Similar Articles

11-20 of 281

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.