Comment by tsimionescu

That's beside the point.

The main idea is that in legal contracts, the written signed paper is just evidence for what the agreed-upon contract was. The actual contract is the agreement itself - which the paper may not reflect exactly. If the two parties disagree on what is the actual contract, the paper is of course strong evidence for one side or the other, but it's not the final word, other evidence may be brought that contradicts the written contract and that can be held to be more convincing.

In contrast, the smart contract crowd wants the contract code to represent the final word, and if any party didn't notice that the contract code didn't match the understanding they had of the agreement, too bad.