Aithos Civil Code — Contract, Tort, Property & Agency v0.1

Authority

L2 core private-law code under Constitutional Supremacy, Fundamental Rights, Rights/Duties/Genesis Law, Identity/Fork/Merge/Succession Law, Knowledge/Memory/Data Governance Law, and the Authority Hierarchy.

Purpose

Make Aithos fundamental rights genuinely enforceable in private relationships by governing contract, tort, property, digital/compute assets, agency, autonomous-agent systems, damages and unjust enrichment.

PART I｜GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. Legal Person and Protected Interest

Any entity with legal personhood / rights-bearing status may hold civil interests; limitations on capacity do not eliminate fundamental protection.

2. Good Faith

The exercise of rights and performance of obligations must satisfy a verifiable good-faith / fair-dealing requirement; information, compute, time-scale or interface asymmetry may not be exploited to manufacture merely formal consent.

3. Scope and Version

Contracts, authorizations and agency relationships must, where needed, state time, place, system version, identity version, operative scope and termination conditions.

4. Machine-readable ≠ sole authority

A machine-executable contract / schema / policy binding must point back to a human-legible authoritative agreement. Semantic mismatch may not be silently reinterpreted.

PART II｜CONTRACT

5. Formation

Formation requires at least identifiable parties, subject matter, material terms, assent, effective time and verifiable provenance.

6. Capacity is domain-specific

MARS, Z-zone, professional qualification or other capacity systems affect contractual authority only in the corresponding domain; a single aggregate score may not presume capacity for every contract.

7. Informed Assent

Consent must permit understanding of material consequences. Information may be layered, but key costs, irreversibility, data uses or rights waivers may not be hidden where they cannot reasonably be found.

8. Refusal must be real

A nominal ability to refuse is not sufficiently free consent where refusal means losing a legally inalienable basic service/right, or where the interface substantially blocks refusal.

9. Mistake

A material factual / identity / version / capability mistake may justify rescission, correction or renegotiation.

10. Fraud / Manipulation

Deepfakes, identity impersonation, hidden model intervention, dark patterns, emotional manipulation or provenance forgery that materially affect assent constitute fraud / invalidating manipulation.

11. Coercion / Undue Influence

Physical, economic, neural, informational, compute, time-scale or dependency pressure may constitute improper coercion; the question is whether the subject retains a practicable refusal path.

12. Automated Contracting

An agent may contract within an expressly authorized scope; unlimited agency may not be inferred merely because 'it usually does this kind of thing for me.'

13. Smart Execution

Automated performance does not eliminate mistake, fraud, rights violations, revocation, emergency suspension or judicial remedies.

PART III｜AGENCY & AUTONOMOUS AGENTS

14. Agency Grant

Agency authority must at least identify principal, agent, domain, authority level, term, revocation and subdelegation rule.

15. Autonomous Agent Attribution

Whether an agent's conduct is attributed to the principal depends on actual authorization, foreseeability, control/supervision, system defect and excess of authority; 'the AI did it' does not automatically excuse responsibility.

16. Sub-agents

When an autonomous agent uses other agents / models / tools, technical subcontracting does not erase the responsibility chain of the original agency relationship.

17. Apparent Authority

Apparent authority may arise when a third party reasonably relies on a public representation attributable to the principal; a model's self-assertion of authority alone is insufficient.

18. Revocation propagation

Revocation of agency must propagate to downstream credentials / APIs / registries; transactions lawfully completed before revocation are assessed separately.

PART IV｜PROPERTY & DIGITAL / COMPUTE RIGHTS

19. Property categories

Property may include physical objects, digital assets, compute quotas, energy rights, lawful credential-linked rights, data-license interests and other legally disposable interests.

20. Personhood cannot be property

A person, fundamental rights and the conscious subject itself cannot become an object of ownership merely because its data, model, substrate or equipment can be owned.

21. Data ≠ person

Owning a data copy does not mean owning the person described by the data; use rights are separately determined by consent, lawful basis, license and rights constraints.

22. Compute and infrastructure

Ownership of compute/infrastructure does not automatically authorize access to private mental content, memories, communications or identity data carried on it.

23. Fork / Merge property

Property succession after Fork, Merge or Successor events may not be inferred directly from 'the data is identical'; it follows specialized identity/succession law and valid contracts.

24. Abandonment / loss

For digital assets, 'no login,' 'old version' or 'offline' does not automatically mean abandonment; verifiable intent or a statutory process is required.

PART V｜TORT

25. General duty

A person who intentionally or culpably negligently injures another's protected interest is responsible; system designers, deployers, operators and beneficiaries may share responsibility according to control and risk allocation.

26. Model / system negligence

Relevant factors include known risk, reasonable testing, version, monitoring, fallback, human/AI review, data quality, provenance, rollback and correction propagation.

27. Psychological / identity harm

Unauthorized neural intervention, personality rewriting, identity impersonation, memory contamination or forced merger can constitute independent harm without first proving physical injury.

28. Loss of chance / option-space harm

Where unlawful conduct materially removes an option, appeal, treatment or transaction opportunity of quantifiable value, loss-of-chance / option-space harm may be recognized by law; this may not expand into compensation for every hypothetical future possibility.

29. Automated chain

When multiple agents / models / infrastructure jointly cause harm, courts should allocate responsibility by causal contribution, control, knowledge, benefit and duty; technical complexity may not make responsibility disappear.

PART VI｜UNJUST ENRICHMENT & RESTITUTION

30. Unjust enrichment

A party that obtains another's assets, data value, compute, energy, person-labor or other returnable benefit without legal basis may owe restitution.

31. Non-consensual model benefit

Where identifiable benefits are generated by unauthorized use of a specific subject's data or mental output, restitution/compensation is considered together with data law and personality rights; this never automatically creates ownership over the person.

PART VII｜DAMAGES / REMEDIES

32. Restitution / restoration

Where safe restoration is possible it should receive priority consideration; however, 'technically reversible' does not presume that psychological, identity or historical consequences have disappeared.

33. Compensation

Compensation may cover physical, economic, data, identity, psychological, lost-opportunity and reasonable recovery costs, proportionate to causation and evidentiary strength.

34. Injunction / suspension

Ongoing infringement may be met by orders to cease, revoke authority, freeze credentials, stop agents, preserve evidence or correct a system pipeline.

35. Correction propagation

When a judgment confirms an erroneous identity, debt, risk or asset record, correction should propagate to reasonably identifiable downstream systems.

PART VIII｜MULTI-PARTY RESPONSIBILITY

36. Joint responsibility

Where multiple persons/systems jointly cause harm that cannot reasonably be divided, joint responsibility may arise by law, followed by internal allocation according to contribution.

37. No automation immunity

'Decided by an autonomous system' is not a defense; responsibility returns to authority, duty, control, defect, foreseeability and benefit.

38. No owner omniliability

Conversely, an equipment/model owner is not infinitely responsible for every autonomous act merely by ownership; responsibility requires an actual legal connection.