Some country-specific observations  Current legislative proposals to clarify the position USA  Key issues: (1) how the parties give assent to the terms; (2) what steps need to be taken to ensure courts ?t are satisfied parties have sufficient notice of the terms (usual rules will apply) ca  Current precedent indicates US courts may be open to the possibility of follow-on contracting rt  No legislation dealing with the issue specifically, but EU directive requires contracts can be concluded on UK electronically. Electronic nature unlikely to be relevant c  Usual rules concerning contract formation likely to apply ng  Limited authority to suggest follow-on contracting may be possible din bi Australia  Electronic Transactions Act 1999 facilitates electronic contracting and contemplates follow-on contracting yll  In other respects usual common law principles relating to formation apply ga  Currently a machine/software cannot declare intent (a requirement for contract formation) - human Le Germany behaviour is required. But is it possible that machine/software actions might be attributed to the person responsible  The more independently a smart contract acts, the less likely the necessary attribution would be UNRESTRICTED 158