The reliance on context and human intervention in our current system is a feature, not a bug. That's my entire point; if you get rid of that, you're introducing a lot of issues, and if you don't, you're throwing out a system with literal centuries of stress-testing where the flaws are legitimate but well understood to switch to one with literally no evidence to suggest that it's better.

> with the courts of varying quality

You can usually pick the jurisdiction (e.g. many contracts are under jurisdiction of England & Wales/Switzerland/Singapore despite neither party being based there, or doing business there).

I think in general judges are quite considered, and the answers you get from courts tend to make quite a lot of sense, especially if you are aware of general legal principles and precedent.

It must. Things that interact with the real world need slack.

You are still subject to courts if you use smart contracts, they change literally nothing about that.