You two are speaking across each other. You're saying no amount of evidence could show someone intended to abide in a way other than how the smart contract say

You two are speaking across each other. You're saying no amount of evidence could show someone intended to abide in a way other than how the smart contract says they must abide, because their intention is part and parcel of what the smart contract says. True. Your partner in this conversation is saying: You might have agreed to something illegal. It's not that the smart contract drifted from the contract's intention, it's that you weren't allowed to agree to that contract in the first place. And they're right: in such a case, the courts won't give an F what conclusions the smart contract comes to. Also true.