Smart contracts, while efficient, cannot fully capture the nuances of human contexts—emotions, intentions, or unforeseen circumstances. These blockchain-based agreements execute predefined terms but lack flexibility for subjective interpretation. Judicial systems can bridge this gap by integrating equitable principles, such as good faith or fairness, to resolve disputes where contracts fall short. Courts may consider external evidence, like communications or cultural norms, to interpret intent or rectify unintended outcomes. By applying doctrines like unconscionability or estoppel, judges can ensure justice aligns with human realities. Hybrid frameworks, combining smart contracts with arbitration or mediation, could also provide balanced solutions, preserving automation while allowing judicial discretion to address complex human scenarios.