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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
This paper is an extended version of Dung and Thang (2008).
One can ask why not \({\mathcal{A}}_1 =\{\}\) or \({\mathcal{A}}_1 =\{Topasz,\neg Topasz, Diamond, \neg Diamond\}\). Wood was aware that the stone could possibly be a topasz but may be not. Therefore, it is not possible that \({\mathcal{A}}_1 =\{\}\). The idea that the stone could be a diamond does not come up at all at the time of making the deal. Hence no contract party could assume that it could be a Diamond. Therefore it is not possible that \({\mathcal{A}}_1 =\{Topasz,\neg Topasz, Diamond, \neg Diamond\}\).
For example, CO sells to CE an annuity (T) on some person P’s life. Then P must be alive (λ = alive) (CK could contain a rule like annuity → alive). But if if it turns out that P was already dead at the time of making the contract (δ = dead) then CE can rescind the contract.
In Dung and Thang (2008), we have required that \(\{\alpha\} \cup KO \vdash_{sk} \delta\) that is a rather strong condition as practically one may take precaution to prevent fire and fire could still happen as there are no fire prevention system that works perfectly in all scenarios.
Note that we make a simplifying assumption here that the contractee pays only after the contractor has delivered the promised service. Many contracts require the contractee to pay in advance or make a deposit. These contracts would require slightly different rules here.
\(\overline{CX}\) is the opposite party of CX.
It is not difficult to see that the extension is also grounded and stable.
References
Ashley KD (1991) Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. Int J Man Mach Stud 34(6):753–796
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2008) Abstract argumentation scheme frameworks. In: AIMSA ’08: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 220–234
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2005) Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning. Artif Intell Law 13(1):93–131
Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143
Bench-Capon T, Prakken H (2008) Introducing the logic and law corner. J Logic Comput 18(1):1–12
Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K, Chorley A (2005) Persuasion and value in legal argument. J Logic Comput 15(6):1075–1097
Berman DH, Hafner CD (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: ICAIL ’93: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 50–59
Bex F, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artif Intell Law 11(2):125–165
Bex F, Van den Braak S, Van Oostendorp H, Prakken H, Verheij B, Vreeswijk G (2007) Sense-making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments? Law Probab Risk 6(1–4):145–168
Bondarenko A, Dung PM, Kowalski RA, Toni F (1997) An abstract argumentation theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif Intell 93(1–2):63–101
Brüninghaus S, Ashley K (2003) Predicting outcomes of case-based legal arguments. In: ICAIL 2003. ACM Press, NewYork
Douglas W (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. ISBN: 080582071X DDC: 168 LCC: BC183. LEA, Mahwah, NJ, alk. paper edition
Dung PM (1993) Logic programming as dialog-game. Technical report, AIT
Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–257
Dung PM, Thang PM (2008) Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract. In: Proceedings of the 21st annual conference, JURIX 2008. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, Florence, vol 189, pp 108–117
Dung PM, Kowalski R, Toni F (2006) Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artif Intell 170(2):114–159
Dung PM, Mancarella P, Toni F (2007) Computing ideal skeptical argumentation. Artif Intell 171(10–15):642–674
Dung PM, Kowalski Robert A, Toni F (2009) Argumentation in AI, chapter assumption-based argumentation. Springer, Berlin
Dung PM, Thang PM, Hung ND (2009) Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines. In: ICAIL 2009. ACM Press, Barcelona
Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (2002) Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif Intell 141(1):187–203
Farnsworth EA, Young WF, Sanger C (2001) Contracts: cases and materials. ISBN: 1587780577. Foundation Press (6th edn)
Gardner AvdL (1987) An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. Mit press series of artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge
Gordon TF (1994) The pleadings game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artif Intell Law 2(4):239–292
Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–15):875–896
Guenter F (2004) Frustration and force majeure, 2nd edn. Sweet and Maxell Press, UK
Lodder A, Zelznikow J (2005) Developing an online dispute resolution environment: dialogue tools and negotiation support systems in a three-step model. Harvard Negotiation Law Rev 10:287–337
McCarty LT (1995) An implementation of eisner v. macomber. In: ICAIL ’95: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 276–286
Poole D (2001) Logical argumentation, abduction and Bayesian decision theory: a Bayesian approach to logical arguments and it’s application to legal evidential reasoning. Cardozo Law Rev 22(5–6):1733–1746
Posner RA (2007) Economic analysis of law. Wolters Kluwer Law and Business Press
Prakken H (2002) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):113–133
Prakken H (2006) Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Eng Rev 1:163–188
Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):331–368
Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6(2–4):231–287
Rissland E, Skalak D (1991) Cabaret: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. Int J Man Mach Stud Arch 34(6):839–887
Roth B, Verheij B (2004) Cases and dialectical arguments—an approach to case-based reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. In: OTM workshops. Springer, Berlin, vol 3292, pp 634–651
Sartor G (2002) Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artif Intell Law 10(1):95–112
Sergot MJ, Sadri F, Kowalski RA, Kriwaczek F, Hammond P, Cory HT (1986) The british nationality act as a logic program. Commun ACM 29(5):370–386
Steven JB, Melvin AE (2007) Contract law: selected source materials. 2007 Edition. Foundation Press
Verheij B (2003) Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artif Intell Law 11(2–3):167–195
Verheij B (2008) About the logical relations between cases and rules. In: JURIX08. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, Florence, vol 189, pp 21–32
Yoshino H (1995) The systematization of legal meta-inference. In: ICAIL, pp 266–275
Yoshino H (1998) Logical structure of contract law system for constructing a knowledge base of the united nations convention on contracts for the international sale of goods. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Inform (JACIII) 2(1):2–11
Acknowledgments
The paper is partially funded by the Sixth Framework IST program of the EC under the 035200 ArguGrid project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M. Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract. Artif Intell Law 17, 167–182 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-009-9076-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-009-9076-x