The vast majority of business is performed under implicit or explicit contracts without any disputes whatsoever. We’re talking billions of interactions per day.
Courts are there for the rare occasion when a dispute occurs. There are many kinds of disputes, but one occurs when there is a complex agreement that was drafted either vaguely or incorrectly. This happens because human beings are imperfect; unforeseeable events occur; and because the language in which the contract was drafted might be vague or capable of multiple interpretations. Court hearings give the litigants the opportunity to provide evidence and context so that a judge can decide the fairest outcome.
So we don’t need courts to do business, but they exist because we need some peaceful way of resolving disputes. The alternative is violence.
There is a whole industry of arbitrators for hire. They are usually specialised in some field of business, so they don't need bringing up to speed. And they're all experienced lawyers. The work is nearly all paperwork - submissions, affidavits, disclosures. There is rarely a face-to-face hearing. It's more like doing accounts-receivable than sueing someone's ass.
"Just business", as some mobster might have said.
Of course, I don't want a bulletproof contract imposed on me. It's better if "our standard contractual terms" are vague, so that I can sue suppliers. But if it's a private, custom contract, then I really need to know beyond doubt what it means.
My problem with blockchain "contracts" is that they don't seem to be able to affect (or be affected by) the real world - fiat bank accounts, delivery of goods in working order, etc. They only seem to affect digital pictures of monkeys. I suppose that simply means I don't "get it".