Buy Stock in Western Digital & Seagate to make money off of ETH.
I like that one.
This is in fact not fair as a comment, because the whole idea is that a smart contract doesn't need any legal enforcing, as it enforces it *automatically*. In fact, what is needed, is a protection AGAINST legal interference. This is why ethereum has a problem being a transparent block chain, and we have seen that problem before our very eyes with the hard fork: the whole concept of smart contract FAILED there, *because* some self-appointed judges (not even official state affiliated ones) RULED that a smart contract's outcome were not to be.
They could do this, because the block chain is traceable, and one could find the "guilty one" of using the contract according to its terms. If the ethereum block chain would have been totally obfuscated, then the hard fork wouldn't have been possible and the smart contract would have been unstoppable.
If a smart contract IS unstoppable, and the actions of the contractors are obfuscated, then a smart contract is REALLY a smart contract of which 1) no legal enforcing is needed and 2) no legal undoing is possible.
In that case, and only in that case, we truly have a smart contract over which no discussion, no ruling, no vote can, will or is needed to happen.
I could think of a smart contract like this one: suppose that I want a security audit of my computing system. I can write out a smart contract that pays anyone who can produce the hash of a document I hide somewhere on my computing system. If anyone can break into my system and get that document, then that person can get paid. And not otherwise.
That would be a typical application of a (small) smart contract. (true, I could do it with bitcoin too, by hiding the secret key of a bitcoin wallet somewhere, so my example is too simple).
No "legal dispute" can happen over that contract. I cannot "sue" any person that used the contract. The contractor cannot sue me because I didn't put the file online and just set up a honeypot to find crackers. The contract is what it is, and the legal system cannot interfere with it, nor to "impose" it, nor to "destroy" it.