Interesting perspective, but it sounds like you're mixing up smart contacts with transactions. A smart contact defines what transactions might happen. Transactions are the actual actions. One contract can run for an indefinant amount of time and cause many transactions.
By this definition, a vending machine is a contract.
Which it isn't. You could put a sign on the machine, contact so-and-so if it steals your money, we will definitely repay you. That would be a contract.
Yeah, the price list on a vending machine is an implied contract defining a monetary transaction for food. So if someone wants to call a vending machine a contract, I'm fine with that.
I'm a lawyer and you shouldn't be. That's my point. I've already seen people immediately make this mistake. "Oh, I don't need a lawyer now because the contract is now on the blockchain." Wrong wrong wrong. If you'd like to do a blockchain transaction thing with or without a lawyer, that's fine, the risk is on you. But, the thing called a smart contract does not fundamentally replace what the lawyer does.
Hahaha be nice, but yes. I think I pay a lot of attention to this as a lawyer because of the whole trope of "lawyers always muddy the waters," and the deeply silly but attractive-to-tech-people idea that you can replace lawyering with technology, like with more "precision" or something like that.
Not gonna happen anytime soon; at the end of the day what lawyers do is work on "when humans being human disagree on things where the stakes are big," not "writing things clearly like a computer."
