INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study and the Objective of CIPAA 2012

The major issue in the construction industry is always the constraint of cash flow. Sufficient cash flow is important in many industries, but it is highlighted that cash flow is the lifeblood of the construction industry. Generally, sufficient cash flow is required for three goals: to pay overhead, labour, and material expenditures; to complete construction operations on time; and to minimise financial liabilities.^[1] The construction firm may depend on its clients' payments to cover these expenses and must have enough operating capital to pay its creditors, suppliers, subcontractors, and employees. Cash flow is significant to contractors since it reflects a project's financial success before the contract is finished and the final account is paid. Cash flow irregularities can result in capital lock-up and act as a catalyst for insolvency, which might ultimately interrupt the project schedule.^[2] Furthermore, payment delays due to limited cash flow may lower the number of financial resources available to contractors to complete the tasks. It will be a "nightmare" when the contractor runs into payment problems.^[3]

Good morning and thank you for asking me to speak this morning. Everything I say in the next few minutes represent my personal views.^[1] They are not those of the Judiciary of England and Wales.

Many of you will be very familiar with the joys of Smart Contracts, block chain, distributed ledgers, crypto assets and currencies, Public keys and Private keys. For those of you who are not as familiar as you would like to be, or wish to undertake a refresher course on these issues, I recommend The Legal Statement on Crypto assets and Smart Contracts published by the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce in November 2019 and Law Commission Paper No 401 entitled "Smart Legal Contracts – Advice to Government". They provide an invaluable insight into this world and should be read by all practicing law in this field. The critical conclusion reached by the Law Commission is that no legislative reform is necessary and that the common law is well able to facilitate and support these emerging technologies. The primary focus of the Law Commission paper is on claims between parties to smart contracts rather than those who have been the victims of fraud. However there is no indication that any different approach will be adopted in relation to fraud claims.

Most individuals believe that their affairs are simple because they are familiar to them – it is the reality they live with every day. Many therefore request simple Wills to save time and costs. However, on further inspection their affairs may be more complex than they think and, ironically, require more detailed planning in order to save time and costs in the longer term.

Most individuals understandably want to save time and costs when drafting their Wills. Indeed, not everyone requires bespoke Will drafting and hours of expert advice. However, that does not mean that everyone should have a simplistic "pro forma" Will and estate plan. Let us compare Person A and Person B. Person A is single, on a salaried income with no expectations of inheriting significant wealth from their family and holds all of their assets in one jurisdiction. Person B is married for the second time, has children from their first marriage, is the custodian of significant generational wealth and holds assets across numerous jurisdictions.

The digital revolution, particularly in blockchain technology, has promoted the use of smart contracts. This form of contract receives recognition for its self-executing and autonomous features. In effect, the involvement of third parties in ensuring compliance can be greatly reduced. However, as smart contracts are usually written in codes, there are concerns if the codes correctly reflect the understanding and consensus ad idem of parties. Stemming from this, the court may face similar problems when claims have to be adjudicated based on smart contracts. The trite doctrine on contractual interpretation may not be applicable directly when a smart contract is required to be interpreted. In this context, this article investigates the appropriate approach when there is a need to interpret the terms of a smart contract.

Keywords: Smart Contract, Legality of Smart Contract, Contractual Interpretation, Interpreting Smart Contract, Smart Contract in Malaysia.

Mining giant BHP has admitted it has underpaid almost 30,000 workers, dating back to 2010, and it will cost more than $400 million to make amends.

In a statement to the ASX, BHP said a review suggested rostered employees in Australia had their leave incorrectly deducted on public holidays since 2010.

"There are approximately 28,500 affected current and former employees with an average of six leave days in total that have been incorrectly deducted from affected employees," the company told the ASX.

BHP also said it has found around 400 current and former employees in Port Hedland are entitled to additional allowances "due to an error with the employment entity in their contract".

Tesla's Shanghai factory workers took to social media to appeal to Elon Musk and the Chinese public after being told at the weekend about cuts to their performance bonuses, according to online posts and employees who spoke to Reuters.

Several of the posts said they believed the deductions were linked to a fatal accident earlier this year at the plant, its biggest worldwide, and criticised Tesla for the cuts.

The situation marks a rare outburst of discontent at Tesla's Shanghai plant, whose workers Musk praised last year for burning "the 3am oil" to keep operations running during the city's two-month COVID-19 lockdown.