Default world enforceability of smart contracts and Kleros judgements?

Ownership of a car example

There is a smart contact with the balance of $35k worth of ETH, just enough to purchase basic model of latest Tesla.

Tesla, as a forward thinking company allows payments in Etherium.

The default reality and legal standards are usually a couple of years behind the innovation.

A new legal entity is created called “Tesla Fractional Ownership Rental & Sons” (TFORS) registered in E-Estonia

But there are many hackers out there.

Immutable laws of security:

If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it’s not your computer anymore.

So the guy removes GPS, social engineers Tesla support, installs new firmware, basically gets root on this computer on wheels attached to giant battery.

That is uncool.

Mr. Hacker is not the owner.

So the Tesla Fractional Ownership Rental & Sons representative calls the Police and does what?

Will the Police enforce the ownership and retake the ownership of the vehicle?

Is the Police aware of Etherium, ETH, smart contracts, NFT tokens representing ownership?

A great article by Jimmy Song

For example, the house could be represented as a non-fungible token on Ethereum. Alice could transfer the house to Bob in an atomic swap for some amount of ETH. Here’s the problem. Bob needs to trust that the token actually represents the house. There has to be some Oracle that ensures the transfer of the house token to him actually means that the house is his legally.

Furthermore, even if a government authority says that the token actually represents the house, what then happens if the token is stolen? Does the house now belong to the thief? What if the token is lost? Is the house not available to be sold anymore? Can the house token be re-issued? If so, by whom?

So what do you think?

Are you aware of any judgments or real-life enforcements in the space?