If the 'smart contract' is really considered a contract then you may be correct, but it comes down to whether or not textualism is accepted in this case - is it

If the 'smart contract' is really considered a contract then you may be correct, but it comes down to whether or not textualism is accepted in this case - is it purely a legal matter and highly dependent upon the jurisdiction where interpretation or do other laws overrule the more strict pedantic approach. The crux of the matter is the special nature of immutable programmatic contracts and the ledger not being in any one jurisdiction, and whether or not this makes it a special case and a new body of law is necessary. Unfortunately it's unlikely that the courts will see it that way, but they're not exactly keeping up with the global nature of the internet either, let alone blockchains. Is it implicit that by interacting with an on-chain contract you're inherently accepting its terms in a legally binding way? We just need Team America to swoop in and "Save The Day™" with an extraordinary rendition and 30 years of entirely justified and "Absolutely Not Cruel™" solitary confinement - a proportionate and career making response for some ladder climbing crime fighting desk jockey at the DOJ.