**3.2 Interpretation of computer codes**

Language is often susceptible to more than one possible meaning. When things go wrong, parties argue about the meaning of the language used in the way that suits them. It is not uncommon that the courts are asked to interpret what was agreed between the parties. The court applies an objective test to identify the intention of the contracting parties. The court refers to "what a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean" [21].

In all the 3 forms of a smart legal contract, computer codes have a role to play. Form 1 does not pose any issues as the code is used as a tool to assist the execution of the performance; it does not define the obligations between parties. As for the other two forms, an issue arises as to how to interpret the code that defines the contractual obligations between parties which are based on the intention of the parties at the time the contract was entered. As in the interpretation of the contractual terms in natural language, the Law Commission adopts the objective test. The question to ask is what the term would mean to a "reasonable coder", a person with the knowledge and understanding of code at the time when the codes were written.

It should be noted that the "reasonable coder" approach is consistent with the current approach adopted by the courts to call expert evidence to assist on the meaning of contractual terms drafted in a foreign language. It is also observed that the reasonable coder approach is consistent with that taken by the courts in Quoine v B2C2, as discussed above.
