Smart Contract Disputes
Smart contracts, the cornerstone of blockchain technology, represent a paradigm shift in contract execution by automating agreements without the need for judicial intervention. Coined by computer scientist and legal scholar Nick Szabo in the early 1990s, smart contracts were conceptualized as self-executing agreements encoded directly into computer code. However, it wasn't until the emergence of blockchain technology, notably Ethereum, that smart contracts became a practical reality.
The introduction of Ethereum in 2015 by Vitalik Buterin revolutionized the landscape of digital transactions by providing a decentralized platform for executing smart contracts. Built on a blockchain infrastructure, Ethereum enabled developers to write and deploy complex agreements using a programming language called Solidity. This breakthrough empowered smart contracts to extend beyond basic financial transactions, facilitating decentralized applications (DApps), token sales, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs).
Smart contracts revolutionize contract execution by automating processes and eliminating intermediaries like lawyers or banks. Operating on blockchain networks ensures transparency, immutability, and security, enhancing trust and efficiency in digital transactions across sectors like finance, real estate, and supply chain management. As technology evolves, smart contracts are set to reshape agreements and transactions, streamlining processes, reducing costs, and minimizing errors. Their impact extends far, promising to transform commerce and contract law in the digital age.
INTRODUCTION TO SMART CONTRACT DISPUTES:
Smart contracts, leveraging blockchain technology to streamline contract execution, brings a new era of efficiency and automation. Yet, their increasing adoption also brings forth challenges related to enforceability, liability, and unforeseen consequences. Resolving disputes arising from smart contracts entails addressing several critical aspects to ensure equitable and effective resolutions. The different types of disputes that can arise in smart contracts are:
- Code Errors: Disputes may stem from errors or vulnerabilities in the smart contract code, leading to unintended outcomes.
- Ambiguous Contract Terms: Lack of clarity in contract terms can give rise to disagreements regarding the parties' rights and obligations.
- Unauthorized Transactions: Issues related to unauthorized access or transactions on the blockchain can spark disputes over ownership or transfers.
- Interpretation Disputes: Parties may interpret contract terms differently, resulting in conflicts over the intended meaning of specific clauses.
- Breach of Contract: Instances where one party fails to meet their obligations as outlined in the smart contract can trigger disputes over non-performance.
ENFORCEABILITY OF SMART CONTRACTS:
Enforceability of smart contracts varies globally due to diverse legal landscapes and interpretations. Understanding the legal frameworks and key provisions in different jurisdictions is crucial for parties engaging in smart contracts.
Legal Framework in India: Smart contracts in India are enforceable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which provides the legal framework for contracts in the country. Key provisions relevant to smart contracts include Section 10, which outlines the essential elements for a valid contract, such as offer, acceptance, and lawful consideration. Section 17 defines fraud, rendering fraudulent activities related to smart contracts voidable. Section 23 mandates lawful consideration for contract validity. Sections 65 and 73 provide for compensation in case of breach of contract, while Section 74 governs compensation when a penalty is stipulated in the contract. Other statutes that govern the enforceability of smart contracts are - The Information Technology Act, 2000, provides the backbone for electronic transactions, recognizing electronic records and signatures as legally valid under Sections 4 and 5, respectively. Section 10-A of the same act establishes the validity of contracts formed through electronic means, while Section 81 offers clarification on inconsistencies with other laws, including the Indian Contract Act. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, outlines conditions for the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in court proceedings, specified under Section 65B.
Regulations issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) cover various aspects of digital payments, cryptocurrencies, and financial transactions, impacting smart contracts in the financial realm. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act ensures compliance with provisions related to transactions subject to GST, ensuring proper taxation and regulatory adherence. For smart contracts involving securities or investment instruments, compliance with regulations issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is necessary to ensure legal compliance.
Additionally, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, plays a significant role in safeguarding consumer rights and providing mechanisms for resolving disputes arising from smart contract transactions. These statutes collectively form the legal framework governing smart contracts and digital transactions in India. Parties engaging in smart contracts need to navigate these provisions to ensure legal compliance and enforceability of their digital agreements.
Global Perspectives on Smart Contract Enforceability: The enforceability of smart contracts varies globally, reflecting diverse legal landscapes and interpretations. The United States and the United Kingdom, generally recognize smart contracts based on principles of contract law, emphasizing offer, acceptance, and consideration. In contrast, civil law jurisdictions, like those in continental Europe, may require specific formalities for contract validity. Countries in emerging markets face challenges in harmonizing traditional contract law principles with the innovative nature of smart contracts, as their legal systems adapt to the use of blockchain technology.
Cross-border enforcement of smart contracts presents several challenges, including determining the applicable jurisdiction for resolving disputes, ensuring legal recognition across borders, and overcoming language and cultural barriers in interpreting contract terms. International treaties and conventions, such as the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, aim to facilitate legal recognition and enforcement of electronic transactions, including smart contracts, on a global scale.
BLAME GAME: LIABILITY IN SMART CONTRACT DISPUTES : LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND CHALLENGES
Determining liability in smart contract disputes involves navigating complex legal principles, including breach of contract, negligence, and emerging blockchain regulations. Whether developers, users, or intermediaries, identifying responsible parties requires a nuanced understanding of blockchain technology and its implications. Parties in a smart contract are bound by the terms and conditions specified in the code, and breaching these obligations can lead to liability for the non-performing party. Developers and auditors of smart contracts have a duty to ensure the accuracy and security of the code, as errors in the code can result in financial losses or contractual breaches. Additionally, smart contracts may involve or interact with third-party services or oracles, complicating the determination of liability in cases where third parties contribute to errors or failures in smart contract performance.
Challenges in determining liability arise from the immutability of blockchain transactions and smart contract code, making rectifying errors or addressing disputes post-deployment challenging. Interpreting complex code structures and logic necessitates specialized expertise, as disputes may emerge over code interpretation, further complicating liability determination. Cross-border operations of smart contracts present jurisdictional issues, particularly in disputes involving parties from different legal systems. Additionally, the rapidly evolving regulatory landscape for blockchain and smart contracts adds to the complexity, creating uncertainty regarding legal obligations and liability.
To mitigate liability risks effectively, regular auditing and testing of smart contracts by independent third parties are crucial to identify vulnerabilities and errors. Clear definition of rights, obligations, and remedies in smart contract terms can reduce ambiguity and minimize the likelihood of disputes over contractual performance. Seeking legal advice from experts well-versed in blockchain technology and smart contracts is imperative for parties to understand their rights and liabilities, navigate disputes, and ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations.
UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES: NAVIGATING RISKS IN SMART CONTRACT EXECUTION
Navigating risks in smart contract execution is crucial to mitigate unforeseen consequences that may arise from errors, vulnerabilities, or unexpected outcomes. Understanding the potential risks associated with smart contracts and implementing strategies to address them is essential for ensuring the reliability, security, and effectiveness of automated contract performance. Navigating risks in smart contract execution is crucial to mitigate unforeseen consequences that may arise from errors, vulnerabilities, or unexpected outcomes. Understanding the potential risks associated with smart contracts and implementing strategies to address them is essential for ensuring the reliability, security, and effectiveness of automated contract performance.
Identifying potential risks in smart contract execution involves recognizing coding errors, security vulnerabilities, oracle manipulation, and regulatory compliance issues. These risks can compromise contract integrity, lead to financial losses, or expose parties to legal penalties. Mitigating these risks requires proactive measures and careful attention to ensure the reliability and security of smart contract operations.
In navigating risks associated with smart contract execution, several key strategies play a vital role in mitigating potential vulnerabilities and addressing unforeseen circumstances effectively. Thorough code audits conducted by experienced professionals help identify and rectify errors, vulnerabilities, and security weaknesses before deployment, ensuring the integrity and functionality of the code. Testing smart contracts in simulated environments and conducting comprehensive testing procedures are essential to uncover potential issues and ensure the reliability of the code in real-world scenarios. Implementing robust security measures, such as encryption, access controls, and multi-signature authentication, enhances the resilience of smart contracts against cyber threats and unauthorized access, safeguarding the integrity of transactions. Additionally, including dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration clauses within smart contracts provides avenues for resolving conflicts and addressing unforeseen circumstances effectively, enhancing trust and confidence in automated contract execution processes.
Navigating risks in smart contract execution involves continuous monitoring and updates, ensuring real-time oversight and compliance with evolving regulations. Education and awareness initiatives are vital for stakeholders to understand risks and implement effective mitigation strategies. Regular risk assessments and audits help evaluate mitigation effectiveness and identify areas for improvement. Ultimately, proactive risk management enhances the reliability, security, and efficiency of automated contract execution.
LEGAL LANDSCAPES: JURISDICTIONAL VARIANCES IN SMART CONTRACT DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Grasping the diversity in jurisdictional approaches is vital for smart contract participants to ensure adherence and efficient conflict resolution. Now, let's delve into a comparative examination of prominent jurisdictions, investigating their legal frameworks and strategies for addressing smart contract disputes. Some nations, such as Switzerland and Malta, have embraced blockchain-friendly laws to encourage innovation while managing risks, while others, like China and India, prioritize regulatory oversight and consumer safeguarding.
United States: In the U.S., smart contracts are governed by federal and state laws. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) provide legal recognition to electronic contracts, including smart contracts. However, enforcement and interpretation can vary among states due to their individual regulations. State-specific approaches and regulations significantly influence the enforceability and interpretation of smart contracts.
United Kingdom: The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) issued a legal statement asserting that smart contracts have the potential to create legally binding obligations enforceable based on their stipulated terms. This recognition provides clarity and legal certainty regarding the enforceability of smart contracts under English law. Additionally, the High Court of England and Wales has addressed issues related to smart contracts, indicating a growing acknowledgment and understanding of their legal implications.
European Union: The EU has harmonized laws on electronic signatures and contracts through the eIDAS Regulation. This regulation establishes a framework for the recognition of electronic transactions across member states. Dispute resolution in the EU is governed by the Brussels I Regulation, which determines the jurisdiction of courts in cross-border disputes, providing clarity on applicable laws and enforcement mechanisms. Arbitration is a common alternative dispute resolution method in the EU, offering parties flexibility and neutrality in resolving smart contract disputes across different member states.
Singapore: Singapore has established a conducive regulatory environment for blockchain technology and smart contracts. The Electronic Transactions Act recognizes electronic contracts and signatures as legally binding, providing a favorable environment for smart contract execution. Efficient dispute resolution mechanisms, including the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), handle cross-border disputes effectively. Singapore's proactive approach to regulating blockchain technology and smart contracts, along with its supportive legal infrastructure, contributes to a favorable environment for resolving disputes in the jurisdiction.
UNCITRAL Model: The UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce provides a legal framework for electronic transactions, including smart contracts. Key articles include Article 2 on the legal recognition of electronic communications and data messages, Article 7 on the use of automated message systems for contract formation, and Article 14 on the admissibility and evidential value of electronic communications in legal proceedings. Additionally, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records establishes rules for the use and transfer of electronic records, ensuring the enforceability and validity of digital transactions.
STATUTORY SIGNPOSTS: KEY LAWS AND REGULATIONS FOR SMART CONTRACT DISPUTES:
Navigating smart contract disputes requires a deep understanding of the legal frameworks governing electronic transactions and data protection. From the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in the United States to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, stakeholders must traverse a complex regulatory landscape to ensure compliance and manage risks effectively. Let's explore some key laws and regulations that serve as statutory signposts for smart contract disputes:
Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA): Adopted by most U.S. states, the UETA provides a legal framework for electronic transactions, including smart contracts. It establishes the validity and enforceability of electronic contracts and signatures.
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN): A federal law in the United States, ESIGN facilitates the use of electronic signatures and records in interstate and foreign commerce, ensuring the legal validity of electronic contracts, including those used in smart contracts.
eIDAS Regulation (EU): The eIDAS Regulation harmonizes electronic signature standards in the European Union and provides a legal framework for electronic transactions. It enhances legal certainty and cross-border recognition of electronic contracts, including smart contracts.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (India): Governing electronic transactions in India, this act provides legal recognition to electronic contracts and signatures, setting out provisions for their validity and enforceability within the Indian legal framework.
Brussels I Regulation (EU): This regulation governs jurisdiction, recognition, and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters within the EU. It provides rules for determining court jurisdiction in cross-border disputes involving smart contracts.
Singapore International Arbitration Act (SIAA): Establishing a framework for international arbitration and enforcement of arbitral awards in Singapore, the SIAA offers parties an efficient alternative dispute resolution mechanism for smart contract disputes.
Smart Contract Legislation in Specific Jurisdictions: Some jurisdictions, like Arizona, Nevada, and Wyoming in the United States, have enacted specific legislation authorizing the use of smart contracts and blockchain technology. These laws provide legal clarity and recognition for smart contracts, outlining rights and obligations of parties involved.
Understanding and adhering to these key laws and regulations is crucial for parties engaging in smart contract transactions. It ensures legal compliance, enforceability of contractual terms, and effective dispute resolution in line with applicable legal frameworks. By following these statutory signposts, parties can navigate smart contract disputes with clarity and confidence, leveraging the legal mechanisms and protections provided.
RESOLVING THE KNOTS: STRATEGIES FOR SMART CONTRACT DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Addressing smart contract disputes requires a multidisciplinary approach, integrating legal, technical, and economic perspectives to navigate complexities inherent in blockchain-based transactions. Developing standardized dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration clauses or specialized courts, enhances legal certainty and fosters trust in blockchain transactions.
Strategies for smart contract dispute resolution include legal analysis and compliance to ensure adherence to statutory requirements, negotiation and mediation to reach amicable solutions, arbitration for flexibility and privacy, smart contract audits to identify vulnerabilities, blockchain forensics for tracing transactions and verifying data integrity, expert witnesses and technical analysis for interpretation and assessment, and court litigation as a last resort. Employing these strategies effectively navigates complexities, mitigates risks, and ensures fair outcomes, enhancing trust in blockchain-based transactions.
CONCLUSION: NAVIGATING THE COMPLEXITIES OF SMART CONTRACT DISPUTES
As smart contracts revolutionize traditional contracting methods, stakeholders face a nuanced legal landscape filled with challenges and opportunities. Navigating smart contract disputes demands a multifaceted approach, blending legal insight, technological comprehension, and strategic dispute resolution mechanisms. To address these complexities effectively, parties should prioritize legal clarity and compliance, conducting thorough risk assessments, implementing proactive dispute resolution strategies, leveraging technological solutions, and fostering collaboration and education within the industry. By embracing these considerations, parties can navigate smart contract disputes with confidence, transparency, and efficiency, ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of blockchain transactions in the digital economy.
References:
1. ‘History of ETH: The Rise of the Ethereum Blockchain’ (Cointelegraph) <https://cointelegraph.com/learn/history-of-ethereum-blockchain>.
2. Pierluigi, Cuccuru, ‘ “Beyond Bitcoin: An Early Overview on Smart Contracts”’ (2017).
3. ‘What Is Ethereum? Is It a Blockchain or Crypto? History, Co-Founders and More, Find out Here’ (Business Today, 27 May 2022) <https://www.businesstoday.in/crypto/story/what-is-ethereum-is-it-a-blockchain-or-crypto-history-co-founders-and-more-find-out-here-335412-2022-05-27>.
4. Morgan N Temte, ‘Blockchain Challenges Traditional Contract Law: Just How Smart Are Smart Contracts?’ (2019) 19 Wyoming Law Review 87.
5. MICHAEL BUCHWALD, SMART CONTRACT DISPUTE RESOLUTION: THE INESCAPABLE FLAWS of BLOCKCHAIN-BASED ARBITRATION (University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol168: 1369, 2020).
6. ‘Smart Contracts: Types, Benefits, and Tools | Spiceworks - Spiceworks’ (Spiceworks Inc) <https://www.spiceworks.com/tech/innovation/articles/what-are-smart-contracts/amp/#>
7. Emmanuelle Ganne, ‘Can Blockchain Revolutionise International Trade?’ (www.wto.org).
8. Nick Szabo, ‘Smart Contracts’ (www.fon.hum.uva.nl, 1994) <https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/LOTwin terschool2006/szabo.best.vwh.net/smart.contracts.html>.
9. Deepti Pandey and Harishankar Raghunath, ‘STATIONING SMART CONTRACT as a “CONTRACT”: A CASE for INTERPRETATIVE REFORM of the INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872’ (2020) <http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/13-4-Pandey- Raghunath-Stationing-Smart-Contracts.pdf>
10. ‘The Enforceability of Smart Contracts in India - Corporate/Commercial Law - India’ (www.mondaq.com) <https://www.mondaq.com/india/contracts-and-commercial- law/874892/the-enforceability-of-smart-contracts-in-india>.
11. AU Janssen and Tom J Vennmanns Vennmanns, ‘Smart Dispute Resolution in the Digital Age: The Potential of Smart Contracts and Online Dispute Resolution for Dispute Prevention and Resolution in Consumer Law Cases’ (2022) 9 International Journal on Consumer Law and Practice <https://repository.nls.ac.in/ijclp/vol9/iss1/7/?utm_source=repository.nls.ac.in%2Fijclp%2Fvol9%2Fiss1%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages>
12. Larry A DiMatteo, Michel Cannarsa and Cristina Poncibò, ‘Smart Contracts and Contract Law’ (Cristina Poncibò, Larry A DiMatteo and Michel Cannarsa eds, Cambridge University Press 2019) 3 <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-smart- contracts-blockchain-technology-and-digital-platforms/smart-contracts-and-contract- law/ABA1420E49BEE88E844B00947783BC28>
13. ‘UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996) with Additional Article 5 Bis as Adopted in 1998 | United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’ (uncitral.un.org) <https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/ecommerce/modellaw/electronic_commerce>.
14. ‘HCCH | #37 - Full Text’ (www.hcch.net) <https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=98>.
15. Deepti Pandey and Harishankar Raghunath, ‘STATIONING SMART CONTRACT as a “CONTRACT”: A CASE for INTERPRETATIVE REFORM of the INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872’ (2020) <http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/13-4-Pandey- Raghunath-Stationing-Smart-Contracts.pdf>
16. ‘Smart Contracts and the Law (BitLaw)’ (www.bitlaw.com) <https://www.bitlaw.com/blockchain/smart-contracts.html>.
17. Max Raskin, ‘The Law of Smart Contracts’ (2016) 1 SSRN Electronic Journal <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2959166>.
18. Adhip Ray, ‘Dispute Resolution for Smart Contracts: Challenges and Opportunities’ (1 April 2023) <https://www.winsavvy.com/dispute-resolution-smart-contracts/>.
19. Law School Policy Review, ‘Are Smart Contracts Really Smart?’ (Law School Policy Review & Kautilya Society 13 January 2024) <https://lawschoolpolicyreview.com/2024/01/13/are-smart-contracts-really-smart/>
20. Larry A DiMatteo, Michel Cannarsa and Cristina Poncibò, ‘Smart Contracts and Contract Law’ (Cristina Poncibò, Larry A DiMatteo and Michel Cannarsa eds, Cambridge University Press 2019) 3 <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-smart- contracts-blockchain-technology-and-digital-platforms/smart-contracts-and-contract- law/ABA1420E49BEE88E844B00947783BC28>
21. ‘Smart Contracts and the Law (BitLaw)’ (www.bitlaw.com) <https://www.bitlaw.com/blockchain/smart-contracts.html>.
22. Max Raskin, ‘The Law of Smart Contracts’ (2016) 1 SSRN Electronic Journal <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2959166>.
23. Mehdi El Harrak, ‘Do Smart Contracts Need New Conflict-of-Laws Rules?’ (brill.com 7 November 2023) 479 <https://brill.com/edcollchap- oa/book/9789004514850/BP000026.xml?language=en>
24. ‘Understanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act’ (www.formstack.com) <https://www.formstack.com/blog/uniform-electronic-transactions-act>
25. ‘X. Other -Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act the Electronic Signatures in Global and
National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act)’ <https://www.fdic.gov/resources/supervision-and-examinations/consumer-compliance- examination-manual/documents/10/x-3-1.pdf>.
26. ‘Smart Contracts | Columbia Business Law Review’ (journals.library.columbia.edu) <https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/CBLR/announcement/view/445>.
27. Sindhuja Kashyap and Tanishq Acharya, ‘LEGAL IMPLICATIONS of BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY and SMART CONTRACTS (India) | PLG International Lawyers E.E.I.G.’ (14 June 2023) <https://plg.eu.com/legal-implications-blockchain-tech-smart-contracts>
28. Max Raskin, ‘The Law of Smart Contracts’ (2016) 1 SSRN Electronic Journal <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2959166>.
29. ‘What Does the CISG Have to Say about Smart Contracts? A Legal Analysis | Chicago Journal of International Law’ (cjil.uchicago.edu) <https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print- archive/what-does-cisg-have-say-about-smart-contracts-legal-analysis#footnote221_eu8orly>
30. Bhumika Indulia, ‘Smart Contracts and Blockchain Arbitration: Smart Solutions Paving the Way for a Better Dispute Resolution Mechanism’ (SCC Blog 25 April 2022) <https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/04/25/smart-contracts-and-blockchain- arbitration-smart-solutions-paving-the-way-for-a-better-dispute-resolution-mechanism/>.
31. Sindhuja Kashyap and Tanishq Acharya, ‘LEGAL IMPLICATIONS of BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY and SMART CONTRACTS (India) | PLG International Lawyers E.E.I.G.’ (14 June 2023) <https://plg.eu.com/legal-implications-blockchain-tech-smart-contracts>
32. Deepti Pandey and Harishankar Raghunath, ‘STATIONING SMART CONTRACT as a “CONTRACT”: A CASE for INTERPRETATIVE REFORM of the INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872’ (2020) <http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/13-4-Pandey- Raghunath-Stationing-Smart-Contracts.pdf>
33. Bhumika Indulia, ‘Smart Contracts and Blockchain Arbitration: Smart Solutions Paving the Way for a Better Dispute Resolution Mechanism’ (SCC Blog 25 April 2022) <https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/04/25/smart-contracts-and-blockchain- arbitration-smart-solutions-paving-the-way-for-a-better-dispute-resolution-mechanism/>.
34. ‘Blockchain, Smart Contracts and Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (Gide Loyrette Nouel 5
35. AU Janssen and Tom J Vennmanns Vennmanns, ‘Smart Dispute Resolution in the Digital Age: The Potential of Smart Contracts and Online Dispute Resolution for Dispute Prevention and Resolution in Consumer Law Cases’ (2022) 9 International Journal on Consumer Law and Practice <https://repository.nls.ac.in/ijclp/vol9/iss1/7/?utm_source=repository.nls.ac.in%2Fijclp%2Fvol9%2Fiss1%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages>