It sounds like you're both in agreement that it doesn't seem realistic. What jacquesm is explaining is that the intention of "smart contracts" is to work entirely outside the existing legal system. There is no need for adjudication of any contract by a court because the contract is the law and the court.

Put in X out comes Y,every time. No room for interpretation, just pure beautiful math. That was the idea anyway, for some reason it seems they decided to implement some of these contracts in a not particularly rigorous way.

Jacques is talking about the theory and premise behind the smart contracts, and you Marco are talking about the people interacting with the smart contracts. People who of course are existing under the scope of our present legal systems.

As long as real people can be hauled before a real court

I think this is the crux of the misunderstanding. Because actions can be taken in these crypto-systems more or less anonymously, it is not obvious that you can "haul some one before a real court" should they wrong you in some way, and in those cases when you have parties interacting in these systems anonymously, the laws of the crypto-systems are the extent of the laws they are operating under. Provided extensive investigative effort isn't undertaken to unmask anyone operating anonymously.