Talking with a friend of mine (lawyer) about nip79 he pointed this
"Clearly establish in the contract terms which jurisdiction will be applicable in case of disputes. This reduces ambiguity and provides certainty to all parties involved"
Login to reply
Replies (3)
This could work?
```json
{
"kind": 900,
"created_at": "[Creation Timestamp]",
"content": "[Content in Markdown]",
"tags": [
["title", "<Contract Title>"],
["summary", "<Short Description>"], // Optional: Short Description for preview
["valid_from", "Timestamp"], // Optional: Start date of the contract
["valid_to", "Timestamp"], // Optional: End date of the contract
["L", "nostr_contracts"],
["l", "Contract", "nostr_contracts"], // One could use "Covenant", "Agreement", or another type according to your specifications.
["p", "party", "<party's 1 pubkey>"],
["p", "party", "<party's 2 pubkey>"],
["p", "party", "<party's 3 pubkey>"],
["expiration", "<Time stamp limit to sign>"],
["jurisdiction", {
"country": "USA",
"state": "California",
"city": "San Francisco",
"court": "Superior Court of California"
}]
],
"pubkey": "[Signer's Public Key]",
"id": "[Event ID]",
}
```
I would simply do a positional tag:
["jurisdiction", "Superior Court of California", "San Francisco", "California", "USA"]
Done in the last commit