Hmm, so don't most courts consider the spirit of a law/contract as opposed to the exact wording to get around people finding obscure loopholes in the phrasing?

Hmm, so don't most courts consider the spirit of a law/contract as opposed to the exact wording to get around people finding obscure loopholes in the phrasing? That's one area a computer is not going to be forgiving about. Obviously in this case, reassigning the wallet owner is completely against the spirit of the smart contract. What solutions are there to this? All I can think of is for contract coders to use a language that allows contract constraints to be specified more easily (e.g. "owners cannot be reassigned") and have it verified by the language. Maybe this is a good application of formally verified code but the language being used doesn't seem built with that in mind.