Common use of Scenario E Clause in Contracts

Scenario E. The consumer raises a genuine claim against the provider, but attaches the wrong evidence leading the SC to evaluate the claim as false. Such a situation may occur if, for example, the provider uploaded the right hash values to the network at the right time, but sent the wrong data to the consumer on the external storage. When the consumer identifies the mismatch between the hash values, there is a risk of raising a latency claim rather than a claim resulting from the mismatched hash. Were the consumer to raise a latency claim in this situation then the SC would prove the claim false and process the cost according to equation 2. In this scenario, resolution and reimbursement of the consumer would be possible if the consumer provided the signed original data to a dispute board. The provider won’t be able to show the hash value that matches with the provided signed data that has been uploaded to the network on the same date. This would of course require such a board to be in place and may reduce the overall financial benefit of the blockchain implementation. Scenario F: The provider chooses to revoke the request as they can no longer provide the data as advertised or are unwilling to provide the data for another reason. In this case, costs will be calculated according to equation 1. Such a scenario could arise if the consumer was suspected of data reselling, which is against the terms of the agreement with a provider. Proof of data reselling would be achieved by comparing hash values uploaded to the chain as part of a data offer. Such a case would require the intervention of the dispute board and may lead to legal action.