Isn't the point that the smart contract is self-executing? The fact that third parties can meddle with it if it's poorly implemented is somewhat orthogonal.
Most contract disputes are about disagreements between the parties, not about how the contract just became impossible because a cat burglar stole the property that was the subject matter of the contract.
I don't think it's orthogonal; no traditional contract actually facilitates the burglary, whereas poorly-implemented smart contracts do.
If the "real" contract is the one enforced by law, and the "smart" contract is the one that might facilitate a burglary, why not dispense with the latter?
