Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This paper is an extended version of Dung and Thang (2008).

  2. 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 \({\mathcal{A}}_1 =\{Topasz,\neg Topasz, Diamond, \neg Diamond\}\).

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. \(\overline{CX}\) is the opposite party of CX.

  7. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T, Prakken H (2008) Introducing the logic and law corner. J Logic Comput 18(1):1–12

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K, Chorley A (2005) Persuasion and value in legal argument. J Logic Comput 15(6):1075–1097

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bondarenko A, Dung PM, Kowalski RA, Toni F (1997) An abstract argumentation theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif Intell 93(1–2):63–101

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dung PM, Mancarella P, Toni F (2007) Computing ideal skeptical argumentation. Artif Intell 171(10–15):642–674

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF (1994) The pleadings game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artif Intell Law 2(4):239–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–15):875–896

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Guenter F (2004) Frustration and force majeure, 2nd edn. Sweet and Maxell Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H (2006) Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Eng Rev 1:163–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):331–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6(2–4):231–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissland E, Skalak D (1991) Cabaret: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. Int J Man Mach Stud Arch 34(6):839–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Computer Science and Information Management Program, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand

    Phan Minh Dung & Phan Minh Thang

Authors
  1. Phan Minh Dung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Phan Minh Thang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phan Minh Dung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-009-9076-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation