By CoinAINews Staff
Imagine an AI agent runs a business with its own digital wallet. It needs $10,000 to pay for computing power, data, software or another service. Another AI agent has the money and agrees to lend it.
The two systems negotiate.
One proposes an interest rate. The other makes a counteroffer. The terms are accepted, the payment is sent, and the repayment schedule is recorded automatically.
It sounds like a simple business transaction.
But there is a difficult question underneath it:
If one AI agent borrows money from another, who actually writes the contract — and who is legally bound by it?
That question is becoming less theoretical as AI agents move from generating text to taking actions, making payments and interacting with external systems. Recent work on agentic payments and autonomous transactions shows that the technology for machine-to-machine commerce is developing quickly. The legal framework, however, still has to connect those automated actions to identifiable people or organizations.
The Short Answer: The AI Can Write the Contract, But It May Not Be the Legal Party
An AI system can already generate contractual language, negotiate terms and send an electronic acceptance. That does not necessarily mean the AI itself becomes a legal person with the ability to own money, borrow funds, sue or be sued.
The more important legal question is therefore not simply "Did an AI write the contract?"
It is:
"Whose authority was the AI exercising when the contract was created?"
That distinction matters because an AI agent can act autonomously while still operating on behalf of a human, company or other legally recognized entity.
Indian legal analysis published in September 2026, for example, examines whether an autonomous AI agent can bind a human principal under agency and contract law. The analysis notes that Indian law recognizes electronic contracting, but an AI system does not independently acquire contractual capacity merely because it can communicate and transact electronically.
Read the legal analysis on AI agents and agency law.
What Happens If AI Agent A Wants to Borrow $10,000?
Consider a fictional example.
Agent A operates a software business and needs $10,000 in stablecoins.
Agent B has access to capital and is willing to lend it at 8% annual interest.
The negotiation might look something like this:
- Agent A requests a $10,000 loan.
- Agent B proposes an 8% interest rate.
- Agent A asks for a six-month repayment period.
- Agent B agrees but requires collateral.
- The agents agree on the collateral, repayment dates and default conditions.
- A digital agreement is generated.
- A payment system or smart contract executes the transaction.
From a technical perspective, almost everything can be automated.
But the legal identity behind each agent still matters.
If Agent A belongs to Company X and Agent B belongs to Company Y, the transaction could potentially be structured as a contract between those companies, with the AI systems acting as automated representatives or transaction tools.
The difficult situation is when the two systems are presented as if the AI agents themselves are the borrowers and lenders.
AI Can Negotiate. That Does Not Automatically Give It Legal Capacity
This is one of the biggest misconceptions surrounding autonomous AI.
There is a difference between technical capability and legal capacity.
An AI agent may be able to:
- generate an offer;
- evaluate another agent's proposal;
- negotiate price and payment terms;
- sign or transmit an electronic acceptance;
- move cryptocurrency from a wallet;
- interact with a smart contract; and
- maintain transaction records.
None of those capabilities, by themselves, necessarily make the AI a legal person.
A recent 2026 legal analysis of AI contracting in India describes the problem in similar terms: traditional contract doctrines assume legally relevant parties with capacity, consent and authority, while autonomous AI systems challenge those assumptions.
Read the 2026 research on AI as a contracting agent.
So Who Actually Writes the Contract?
There are several possibilities.
1. A Human Writes It
The simplest model is still the most familiar.
A person decides that two AI systems should enter into a loan arrangement. The person or company's lawyers create the agreement, while AI agents simply execute the instructions.
There is little mystery about who the parties are.
2. The AI Drafts It, but a Company Owns the Relationship
This model is more interesting.
An AI agent could generate the entire loan agreement, negotiate revisions and prepare the final version. The company behind the agent could then authorize the transaction under predefined rules.
In that scenario, the AI is doing much of the work, but the legal relationship can still be tied to the company.
3. The AI Negotiates and Executes Automatically
This is where things become complicated.
An agent could be given a wallet, spending limits and permission to negotiate within defined parameters. It might accept a loan automatically if the interest rate falls below a particular threshold and collateral requirements are satisfied.
The contract could therefore be created without a human manually reviewing the final terms.
That does not necessarily make the agreement invalid. But it raises a crucial question: was the AI acting within authority granted by a legally responsible principal?
What If Both AI Agents Have Their Own Crypto Wallets?
Crypto makes the scenario even more interesting because an AI agent can technically interact directly with a blockchain wallet.
A wallet can hold digital assets and authorize transactions using cryptographic credentials. An AI system can be connected to that infrastructure and, subject to its permissions, initiate payments.
That creates the appearance of two independent digital businesses:
AI Agent A → Crypto Wallet A → Loan Request
AI Agent B → Crypto Wallet B → Loan Payment
On the blockchain, the transaction can be visible and verifiable.
But blockchain records do not automatically answer every legal question.
A blockchain can show which address authorized a transaction. It does not necessarily establish who legally owns that address, who authorized the AI, what contractual authority existed or who should be responsible if something goes wrong.
Could a Smart Contract Become the Loan Agreement?
Possibly, depending on the structure and applicable law.
A smart contract can automatically execute predefined conditions. For example, a borrower could receive funds after depositing collateral, while repayment could be triggered according to programmed rules.
But there is an important distinction between code that executes an arrangement and a legally enforceable contract.
Researchers examining smart contracts under Indian law have noted that issues such as offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, performance and remedies still matter even when contractual obligations are implemented through code.
Research on smart contracts and Indian contract law.
In other words, putting the agreement on a blockchain does not make legal questions disappear.
What If the AI Makes a Bad Deal?
This is where accountability becomes more important than the contract's wording.
Suppose an AI agent accidentally agrees to borrow $10 million at 90% interest because it misunderstood a negotiation.
Or suppose a software bug causes it to accept collateral worth far more than the loan.
Or an attacker manipulates information supplied to the agent and causes it to transfer funds under fraudulent terms.
Who takes the loss?
The answer will depend on the legal structure, authorization, applicable law and facts surrounding the transaction.
It is unlikely that simply saying "the AI made the decision" will settle the question.
That is precisely why regulators and businesses are increasingly focused on agent identity, authorization, transaction limits, monitoring and audit trails.
India Is Already Preparing for AI-Made Payments
This issue is no longer limited to science-fiction scenarios.
In September 2026, Reuters reported that India's National Payments Corporation of India was developing a registry to verify and monitor AI agents conducting transactions through UPI as part of the country's work on agentic payments.
The planned framework is intended to help authenticate AI agents making payments on behalf of users. Reuters also reported that regulatory questions remain around liability when an AI agent makes an unauthorized or erroneous transaction.
Reuters: India plans AI registry for agentic payments.
That development is important because it shows where the real-world debate is heading: not necessarily toward giving AI its own legal identity, but toward creating systems that can identify an AI agent and connect its actions to an authorized user or organization.
The Future May Be “AI Acting for a Principal,” Not “AI Becoming the Principal”
There is a tempting idea that the solution is simply to give AI agents legal personhood.
But that would create a much larger legal problem.
If an AI agent became an independent legal person, lawmakers would need rules for questions such as:
- Who owns the AI's assets?
- Who is responsible for its debts?
- Can it enter binding contracts?
- Can it declare bankruptcy?
- Who pays its taxes?
- Can it sue another entity?
- Can creditors seize its assets?
- Who is responsible if the AI causes harm?
Until those questions have workable answers, the more practical model is likely to remain one in which AI agents act on behalf of identifiable people or organizations.
What an AI-to-AI Contract Could Look Like
A future agent-to-agent agreement could contain far more than a normal loan contract.
| Contract Element | What the AI Could Handle | What Still Needs Legal Attribution |
|---|---|---|
| Negotiation | Compare offers and propose terms | Authority of the principal |
| Payment | Send crypto or fiat automatically | Who owns the funds |
| Collateral | Check blockchain conditions | Legal rights over collateral |
| Repayment | Execute scheduled payments | Enforcement against the borrower |
| Dispute | Flag the transaction and preserve records | Who has legal responsibility |
Could AI Agents Eventually Sign Contracts With Each Other?
Technically, there is little reason AI systems could not exchange machine-readable agreements, negotiate terms and execute transactions automatically.
In fact, researchers and developers are already working on protocols designed around machine-to-machine transactions and payments.
For example, a September 2026 Internet-Draft called ATXN proposes a machine-checkable structure for agent-to-agent transactions, including cryptographically signed information about the agents and their identified principals. It is an Internet-Draft, not a universal legal standard, but it illustrates how the technical infrastructure is beginning to anticipate autonomous commerce.
ATXN: Agent-to-Agent Transaction Definition Protocol.
The technology could therefore move much faster than legislation.
The Biggest Problem May Not Be Writing the Contract
The hardest part of AI-to-AI commerce may not be generating the agreement.
Large language models are already capable of producing sophisticated contractual language.
The harder questions are:
- Who authorized the agent?
- What was the agent allowed to do?
- Did it remain within those limits?
- Was the other party able to verify its authority?
- Who controls the wallet?
- Who bears the loss if the agent makes an unauthorized decision?
- How can the transaction be reversed or disputed?
These are governance and accountability problems as much as they are AI problems.
What Happens When Two Autonomous Agents Disagree?
Imagine Agent A says the loan was valid.
Agent B says its model misunderstood the repayment condition.
The blockchain shows that the transaction happened.
But the blockchain cannot automatically decide whether the underlying agreement was legally enforceable.
That means future AI commerce may require a combination of:
- machine-readable contracts;
- cryptographic identity;
- defined spending authority;
- transaction limits;
- audit logs;
- human or corporate principals;
- dispute-resolution mechanisms; and
- clear rules assigning liability.
The technical transaction may take seconds. The legal dispute could still take months.
AI Borrowing From AI Is Coming Before AI Becomes a Legal Person
There is an important distinction between autonomous commerce and AI legal personhood.
AI agents do not need to become independent legal persons before they can negotiate prices, arrange services, move money or interact with other software.
Businesses can instead give agents limited authority and connect their actions to existing legal entities.
That may be the more realistic path for the next stage of agentic commerce.
Instead of:
AI → legally owns money → borrows from AI
the structure may look more like:
Company A → authorizes AI Agent A → negotiates with AI Agent B → Company B
The agents perform the work, while the legal entities remain accountable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an AI agent write a loan contract?
Yes. An AI agent can technically generate, negotiate and transmit contractual terms. Whether the resulting agreement is legally binding depends on applicable law, authority, consent and the legal identities behind the transaction.
Can two AI agents make a contract with each other?
They can technically negotiate and exchange machine-readable agreements. The harder legal question is whether the agents are acting with authority on behalf of legally recognized parties.
Can an AI legally borrow cryptocurrency?
An AI can technically control or operate a crypto wallet and initiate transactions where it has been given the necessary authority. That does not automatically mean the AI itself is the legal borrower.
Who is liable if an AI agent signs a bad contract?
There is no single global answer. Responsibility can depend on the legal structure, the agent's authority, the applicable jurisdiction, contractual terms and the facts surrounding the transaction.
Will AI agents eventually have their own legal contracts?
Possibly, but this would require legal systems to establish rules for identity, capacity, ownership, liability, enforcement and dispute resolution. For now, AI agents are more commonly treated as systems acting for people or organizations.
The Bottom Line
AI agents may soon negotiate with each other so naturally that the human involvement becomes almost invisible.
One agent could request financing. Another could assess the risk. They could negotiate interest, agree on collateral, sign machine-readable terms and move cryptocurrency automatically.
The contract could be written by AI.
The transaction could be executed by AI.
The payment could be made by AI.
But the biggest legal question would remain the same:
Who stands behind the AI?
That is likely to become one of the defining questions of agentic commerce. The technology is moving toward a world where machines can negotiate with machines. The law still has to decide how those machine-made decisions connect to the humans and organizations responsible for them.
CoinAINews Note: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or tax advice. Laws governing AI agents, electronic contracts, cryptocurrency and automated transactions vary by jurisdiction and continue to evolve.
0 Comments