The Court of Amsterdam has discovered that bitcoin possesses “properties of wealth” following a civil rights case. Dutch repossession legal guidelines have been invoked to mandate the reimbursement of 0.591 BTC obliged by a contract between two people regarding bitcoin mining.
Also Read:The Race Between Segwit and Bitcoin Cash Is Heating Up
Dutch Court Publishing Findings Regarding Bitcoin Mining Contract
Earlier this week, the Court of Amsterdam revealed its findings in relation to a civil rights dispute between a person and a non-public mining firm.
The civil rights case was filed by Mr. JW de Vries on February 14 towards Koinz Trading BV, with the court docket ruling in favor of the petitioner – who was owed 0.591 BTC by the corporate. Significantly, the Court of Amsterdam discovered that bitcoin possesses “properties of wealth”, figuring out that the declare of a bitcoin switch beneath Dutch property rights is juridically legitimate.
The court docket judgment states “Bitcoin exists, according to the court, from a unique, digitally encrypted series of numbers and letters stored on the hard drive of the right-holder’s computer. Bitcoin is ‘delivered’ by sending bitcoins from one wallet to another wallet. Bitcoins are stand-alone value files, which are delivered directly to the payee by the payer in the event of a payment. It follows that a bitcoin represents a value and is transferable. In the court’s view, it thus shows characteristics of a property right. A claim for payment in Bitcoin is, therefore, to be regarded as a claim that qualifies for verification.”
Holland Sets Precedent for Legal Recognition of Bitcoin Contracts
The court docket’s determination is important because it units a precedent for the popularity of contractual agreements denominated in bitcoin in future, with the Court of Amsterdam concluding that “It is undisputed that it is clear that the claim that the applicant has seized has not been paid by the plaintiff.”
The court docket also took Holland’s Bankruptcy Act into consideration in making its determinations. “At the hearing, the applicant demonstrated the existence of several (aid) claims. From the documents submitted by the applicant, it appears that several persons have claims on the vested party that see the payment of Bitcoin or on claims for non-fulfillment of obligations under an agreement, with penalties attached in some cases. At the hearing, therefore, it appeared briefly that the applicant had a right of action, as well as facts and circumstances, which show that the applicant is in the position of having ceased to pay.”
Do you suppose that the Court of Amsterdam’s ruling will set a precedent for future circumstances? Share your ideas within the comments part below!
Thank you for visiting our site. You can get the latest Information and Editorials on our site regarding bitcoins.
