As far as the law is concerned, I don't see why a clearly defined contract should not hold in law depending on what the application of it is. But I'm not a lawyer so that's not something that I can even speculate about given how absurd some of the loopholes over there are.
Yes, but here's the thing:
1. In the cases where there is already legal precedent (99.99% of contracts that one would write), contracts must be written in alignment with what is already legally defensible. Thus involvement of the legal system is unavoidable. So no advantage to a smart contract over non-smart one (i.e. paper contract) there.
- and -
2. If you write a legally-binding contract in paper form vs. a smart contract in code, their wording and rules will be virtually identical, but the paper form will be easier to write and sign. And won't require purchasing ETH to create and execute it. So still no ROI advantage to doing it in smart code.
See what I mean? This is what I mean when I say that smart contracts are a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist.
It like when companies say that Blockchain tech will change the world, but the coins themselves are irrelevant and unnecessary.