builder30 min

Research Memo Generation

Combine Claude's legal reasoning with Moonlit's verified legal sources to produce research memos. Claude will search for relevant case law and legislation, analyze the legal landscape, and produce a structured memo with proper citations -- all from a single conversation prompt. The memo includes a question presented, short answer, detailed analysis with source citations, and a conclusion. Ideal for getting a fast first draft that a lawyer can then review and refine.

MCP Setup Required

Make sure you've added Moonlit as an MCP server in Claude Desktop.

View setup instructions →

Try these prompts

Draft a research memo on the enforceability of AI-generated contract clauses under Dutch law.

Write a memo analyzing the current state of EU law on algorithmic discrimination in hiring, with references to CJEU case law and the AI Act.

Prepare a comparative memo on data localization requirements across EU member states.

Draft a memo on the legal implications of deepfakes under EU law, covering the AI Act, GDPR, and copyright.

Write a research memo on whether smart contracts qualify as enforceable agreements under Dutch contract law.

Example Conversation

You

Draft a research memo on whether smart contracts qualify as enforceable agreements under Dutch contract law. Include relevant case law and legislation.

Claude

I'll search Moonlit for relevant Dutch legislation and case law on contract formation, electronic transactions, and smart contracts. Let me compile a formal research memo. --- **RESEARCH MEMO** **Re:** Enforceability of Smart Contracts under Dutch Law **Date:** March 2026 **Jurisdiction:** Netherlands **1. QUESTION PRESENTED** Do smart contracts -- self-executing programs deployed on a blockchain that automatically perform contractual obligations when predefined conditions are met -- constitute legally enforceable agreements under Dutch contract law? **2. SHORT ANSWER** Smart contracts are likely enforceable under Dutch law, provided the general requirements for valid contract formation under Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW) are met. Dutch law is technology-neutral regarding the form of agreements, and the key question is not whether the contract is "smart" but whether the parties validly consented to the automated terms. **3. DETAILED ANALYSIS** *3.1 Contract Formation (Articles 6:217-6:225 BW)* Under Dutch law, a contract is formed through offer and acceptance (aanbod en aanvaarding). Articles 3:33 and 3:35 BW establish that a legal act requires a declaration of will directed at a legal effect. The Hoge Raad's Haviltex standard (ECLI:NL:HR:1981:AG4158) provides that the meaning of contractual terms is determined by what the parties could reasonably expect from each other's statements and conduct. Smart contracts satisfy these requirements when: - Both parties demonstrably agree to the code's execution (e.g., by signing a transaction or executing a function call) - The automated performance corresponds to obligations the parties intended to create - The triggering conditions are known to and accepted by both parties *3.2 Electronic Transactions* Article 6:227a BW implements the EU e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) and provides that contracts can be concluded electronically. Article 3:15a BW recognizes electronic signatures. A blockchain transaction signed with a private key constitutes an electronic signature under Article 3:15a BW and Regulation (EU) 910/2014 (eIDAS). *3.3 The Code-as-Contract Question* The critical issue is whether the code itself constitutes the contract or merely its execution mechanism. Under Dutch law, this distinction matters for interpretation disputes. Following the Hoge Raad's approach in ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AO1427, the contract is the agreement between parties, and the code is the means of performance. If the code's execution deviates from the parties' shared intent, the agreement (not the code) governs. *3.4 Mandatory Law Limitations* Smart contracts cannot override mandatory Dutch law: - Consumer protection rules under Articles 6:231-6:247 BW (general terms and conditions) apply if one party is a consumer - The automated nature of execution does not remove the right to invoke nullification (vernietiging) under Article 3:44 BW (duress, fraud, undue influence) - Error (dwaling) under Article 6:228 BW can be invoked if the code's behavior was materially different from what a party reasonably expected *3.5 Remedies and Modification* The immutability of blockchain-deployed smart contracts creates tension with Dutch remedial provisions. Under Article 6:258 BW (unforeseen circumstances / imprevu), a court can modify or dissolve a contract if its unaltered performance would be unacceptable. This applies regardless of the contract's technical form. **4. CONCLUSION** Smart contracts are enforceable under Dutch law as a technologically neutral application of existing contract law principles. However, the automated and potentially immutable nature of smart contracts does not exempt them from mandatory consumer protection rules, the right to invoke error or nullification, or the court's power to modify contracts under unforeseen circumstances. Parties deploying smart contracts should complement the code with a natural-language agreement that governs interpretation disputes, specifies the applicable law, and addresses upgrade mechanisms. **5. SOURCES** Legislation: - Articles 3:33, 3:35, 3:44, 6:217-6:225, 6:227a, 6:228, 6:231-6:247, 6:258 Dutch Civil Code (BW) - Article 3:15a BW (electronic signatures) - Regulation (EU) 910/2014 (eIDAS) - Directive 2000/31/EC (e-Commerce Directive) Case law: - HR 13 March 1981, ECLI:NL:HR:1981:AG4158 (Haviltex) - HR 19 November 2004, ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AO1427 - HR 5 April 2013, ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BY8101 (Lundiform/Mexx) ---

Moonlit tools Claude uses

search_documents

Searches Dutch legislation (BW, commercial code) and case law (Hoge Raad, Gerechtshoven) for relevant provisions and precedents.

get_document

Retrieves the full text of Hoge Raad decisions and statutory provisions to verify citations and extract specific holdings.

list_jurisdictions

Checks available jurisdictions and portals to ensure complete coverage for the research question.

Example Output

{
  "memo_format": "research_memo",
  "sections": ["question_presented", "short_answer", "analysis", "conclusion", "sources"],
  "sources_cited": {
    "legislation": [
      "Articles 3:33, 3:35, 6:217-6:225, 6:227a, 6:258 BW",
      "Regulation (EU) 910/2014 (eIDAS)",
      "Directive 2000/31/EC"
    ],
    "case_law": [
      "ECLI:NL:HR:1981:AG4158 (Haviltex)",
      "ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AO1427",
      "ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BY8101 (Lundiform/Mexx)"
    ]
  },
  "total_sources_consulted": 19,
  "word_count": 850
}

What's next

Contract Review

Legal Research Questions