Legal Challenges of Restitution of Counter-Performances in Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts: From Code Rigidity to the Enforcement of Judicial Decisions

Abstract

The emergence of distributed ledger technology and smart contracts has brought about a profound transformation in the fundamental concepts of contract law and the remedies governing contractual relationships, confronting legal systems with unprecedented challenges at the level of enforcement. This study aims to examine and explain the legal challenges associated with the restitution of counter-performances in blockchain-based smart contracts, with particular emphasis on the tension between the technical rigidity of computer code and the legal imperative of restoring the parties to their pre-contractual position. The central research question concerns how the immutability inherent in smart contracts can be reconciled with mandatory legal rules, including the legal consequences of contractual nullity, rescission, and automatic termination, particularly in an environment where the power to enforce judicial decisions has become detached from sovereign authority and is instead tied to control over private cryptographic keys. Employing a descriptive-analytical and comparative approach, the study demonstrates that, in decentralized systems, the absence of an accountable intermediary creates significant technical obstacles to the restitution in kind of digital assets. The findings indicate that overcoming these impasses requires two complementary strategies. First, at the technical level, there is a need to move toward legally compliant smart contracts and to incorporate legal gateways into the architecture of their code. Second, at the legal level, it is necessary to recognize the theory of compulsory valuation of digital assets and to prioritize restitution by equivalent or monetary value within the physical legal order. Ultimately, this study argues that justice in the digital age requires a new synthesis between the logic of law and the architecture of code so that technological complexity does not impede the application of mandatory legal rules or the protection of proprietary rights.