No new contracts just new variations on old contracts. I don't really see much value ad myself but I'm generally on the skeptical side of the bitcoin discussion anyhow so don't just take my word on it.
Lawyers and escrow agents and other human intermediaries take fees on transactions, usually proportional to the downside risk of a "bad" transaction (completed, but one party desires recourse for something).
If the risk is that well defined, then the cost of escrow seems wasteful if you could just automate the upside/downside in the Blockchain (not necessarily well defined yet). I don't think the package delivery service is even close to an interesting example, so I don't know why anyone would choose it. Packages need to be delivered. Automated contracts can only eliminate insurance middle-men, not physical logistics.
BTC advocates should focus on useful ways to simplify existing contracts (while paying very close attention to the profit structure of underwriting).
>If the risk is that well defined, then the cost of escrow seems wasteful if you could just automate the upside/downside in the Blockchain
You don't pay for them to calculate the risk though you pay for them to resolve the issue when there is a dispute. So using bitcoin wouldn't actually lower that cost/allow you to automate away any of that.
>Automated contracts can only eliminate insurance middle-men
The middle-men in most contracts are there for assurance. Bitcoin doesn't provide that even with m-of-n.
The big value is not having to completely trust the person holding the money. As of right now if you do escrow you transfer money to a third party, who has the option of taking it and running.
With a correctly setup transaction, bitcoins can be held in escrow that require 2 of 3 people to approve moving it. This means that you/seller, you/escrow, or seller/escrow are the only 3 combos to get the bitcoins out. There's no way for the escrow agent to steal the money.
