changed circumstances. Like the process leading up to drawing up a final contract document, the latter may itself remain `interactive' for both parties and, indeed, affected third parties (Katsh, 1995: 127-30). Clauses on pricing, for instance, may be linked electronically to a range of economic and political indicators, with movements beyond certain parameters alerting parties and initiating various types of adjustment process. Some legal systems, like many US jurisdictions and to a lesser extent the Japanese legal system, will readily support such developments, both in giving legal effect to such agreed mechanisms and in facilitating an adjustment process (renegotiation, court adjustment, or perhaps even exemption from liability) if the clause or the contract as a whole was initially flawed or circumstances have changed radically. Others, like the New Zealand legal system still reliant on `formal' legal reasoning and the classical model of contract as a self-contained one-off deal, will find it much more difficult to deal with such developments (Nottage, 1997b; 1997c). In addition, the sheer additional volume of transactions facilitated by the growth of IT and cyberspace will lead to new types of disputes. Civil procedure, culminating in litigation taken through to final judgment, may still be important. But the shape of the `dispute resolution pyramid' (Felstiner et al, 1980-1) will probably change. The lower stages of the pyramid probably become more important, but the expansion of cyberspace may also reinforce tendencies for the various stages to merge into each other (c.f. Wada, 1997). Thus, the broader study of