Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract

Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract To create a programming environment for contract dispute resolution, we propose an extension of assumption-based argumentation into modular assumption-based argumentation in which different modules of argumentation representing different knowledge bases for reasoning about beliefs and facts and for representation and reasoning with the legal doctrines could be built and assembled together. A distinct novel feature of modular argumentation in compare with other modular logic-based systems like Prolog is that it allows references to different semantics in the same module at the same time, a feature critically important for application of argumentation in legal domains like contract dispute resolution where the outcomes of court cases often depend on whether credulous or skeptical modes of reasoning were applied by the contract parties. We apply the new framework to model the doctrines of contract breach and mutual mistake. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Artificial Intelligence and Law Springer Journals

Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract

Dung, Phan; Thang, Phan
Artificial Intelligence and Law , Volume 17 (3) – Jun 23, 2009
Download PDF
16 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/modular-argumentation-for-modelling-legal-doctrines-in-common-law-of-MAlJZ61vgz
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Subject
Computer Science; Artificial Intelligence (incl. Robotics); International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law; Philosophy of Law; Legal Aspects of Computing; Information Storage and Retrieval
ISSN
0924-8463
eISSN
1572-8382
DOI
10.1007/s10506-009-9076-x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

To create a programming environment for contract dispute resolution, we propose an extension of assumption-based argumentation into modular assumption-based argumentation in which different modules of argumentation representing different knowledge bases for reasoning about beliefs and facts and for representation and reasoning with the legal doctrines could be built and assembled together. A distinct novel feature of modular argumentation in compare with other modular logic-based systems like Prolog is that it allows references to different semantics in the same module at the same time, a feature critically important for application of argumentation in legal domains like contract dispute resolution where the outcomes of court cases often depend on whether credulous or skeptical modes of reasoning were applied by the contract parties. We apply the new framework to model the doctrines of contract breach and mutual mistake.

Journal

Artificial Intelligence and Law – Springer Journals

Published: Jun 23, 2009

References

  • Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO
    Ashley, KD
  • Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning
    Atkinson, K; Bench-Capon, TJM
  • A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values
    Bench-Capon, TJM; Sartor, G
  • Introducing the logic and law corner
    Bench-Capon, T; Prakken, H
  • Persuasion and value in legal argument
    Bench-Capon, TJM; Atkinson, K; Chorley, A
  • Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations
    Bex, F; Prakken, H; Reed, C; Walton, D
  • Sense-making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments?
    Bex, F; Van den Braak, S; Van Oostendorp, H; Prakken, H; Verheij, B; Vreeswijk, G
  • An abstract argumentation theoretic approach to default reasoning
    Bondarenko, A; Dung, PM; Kowalski, RA; Toni, F
  • On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games
    Dung, PM
  • Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation
    Dung, PM; Kowalski, R; Toni, F
  • Computing ideal skeptical argumentation
    Dung, PM; Mancarella, P; Toni, F
  • Coherence in finite argument systems
    Dunne, PE; Bench-Capon, TJM
  • An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. Mit press series of artificial intelligence and legal reasoning
    Gardner, AvdL
  • The pleadings game: an exercise in computational dialectics
    Gordon, TF
  • The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
    Gordon, TF; Prakken, H; Walton, D
  • Frustration and force majeure
    Guenter, F
  • Developing an online dispute resolution environment: dialogue tools and negotiation support systems in a three-step model
    Lodder, A; Zelznikow, J
  • Logical argumentation, abduction and Bayesian decision theory: a Bayesian approach to logical arguments and it’s application to legal evidential reasoning
    Poole, D
  • An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning
    Prakken, H
  • Formal systems for persuasion dialogue
    Prakken, H
  • A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning
    Prakken, H; Sartor, G
  • Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game
    Prakken, H; Sartor, G
  • Cabaret: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture
    Rissland, E; Skalak, D
  • Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics
    Sartor, G
  • The british nationality act as a logic program
    Sergot, MJ; Sadri, F; Kowalski, RA; Kriwaczek, F; Hammond, P; Cory, HT
  • Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic
    Verheij, B
  • Logical structure of contract law system for constructing a knowledge base of the united nations convention on contracts for the international sale of goods
    Yoshino, H