skip to main content
10.1145/1568234.1568249acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicailConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines of performance relief

Published: 08 June 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Legal doctrines provide principles, guidelines and rules for dispute resolution in reasoning with cases. To apply legal doctrines, the context of a contract consisting of different knowledge bases about beliefs and expertise of contract parties as well as about common social, legal domains need to be established. Judges then decide legal outcomes by reasoning from factors drawn in contract contexts following legal doctrines. In this paper, we model this decision making by modular argumentation. We focus on legal doctrines in contract law, especially the doctrines of impossibility and frustration of purpose.

References

[1]
K. Atkinson and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law, 13(1): 93--131, 2005.
[2]
T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Agreeing to differ: modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values. Informal Logic, 22: 2002, 2003.
[3]
T. J. M. Bench-Capon, K. Atkinson, and A. Chorley. Persuasion and value in legal argument. Dec. 04 2005.
[4]
T. J. M. Bench-Capon and G. Sartor. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1--2): 97--143, 2003.
[5]
P. M. Dung. Logic programming as dialog-game. Technical report, AIT, 1993.
[6]
P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2): 321--257, 1995.
[7]
P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artif. Intell, 170(2): 114--159, 2006.
[8]
P. M. Dung and P. M. Thang. Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract. In JURIX, Dec. 2008.
[9]
P. M. Dung and P. M. Thang. Towards an Argument-based Model of Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contracts. In 9th International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA), Sept. 2008.
[10]
E. A. Farnsworth, W. F. Young, and C. Sanger. Contracts: Cases and Materials. Foundation Pr; 6 edition, June 2001.
[11]
A. D. H. Farrell, M. J. Sergot, M. Sallé, and C. Bartolini. Using the event calculus for tracking the normative state of contracts. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst, 14(2--3): 99--129, 2005.
[12]
A. v. d. L. Gardner. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987.
[13]
T. F. Gordon. The pleadings game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artif. Intell. Law, 2(4): 239--292, 1994.
[14]
T. F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. Walton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10--15): 875--896, 2007.
[15]
G. Governatori and Z. Milosevic. A formal analysis of a business contract language. Jan. 01 2006.
[16]
Guenter Freitel. Frustration and Force Majeure. Sweet and Maxell, 2004.
[17]
L. T. McCarty. An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber. In ICAIL, pages 276--286, 1995.
[18]
R. A. Posner. Economic Analysis of Law. Wolters Kluwer, Feb. 2007.
[19]
H. Prakken. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. 2006.
[20]
H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law, 4(3--4): 331--368, 1996.
[21]
J. B. Steven and A. E. Melvin. Contract Law: Selected Source Materials. Foundation Press, 20 July 2007.
[22]
H. Yoshino. The systematization of legal meta-inference. In ICAIL, pages 266--275, 1995.
[23]
H. Yoshino. Logical structure of contract law system - for constructing a knowledge base of the united nations convention on contracts for the international sale of goods -. JACIII, 2(1): 2--11, 1998.

Cited By

View all
  • (2010)Carneades and Abstract Dialectical FrameworksProceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 201010.5555/1860828.1860831(3-12)Online publication date: 5-Aug-2010
  • (2010)Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines of performance reliefArgument & Computation10.1080/194621609035645841:1(47-69)Online publication date: Mar-2010
  • (2009)Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contractArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-009-9076-x17:3(167-182)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2009

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
ICAIL '09: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
June 2009
244 pages
ISBN:9781605585970
DOI:10.1145/1568234
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 June 2009

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. argumentation
  2. frustration
  3. impossibility
  4. legal doctrines

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ICAIL '09

Acceptance Rates

ICAIL '09 Paper Acceptance Rate 22 of 58 submissions, 38%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 17 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2010)Carneades and Abstract Dialectical FrameworksProceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 201010.5555/1860828.1860831(3-12)Online publication date: 5-Aug-2010
  • (2010)Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines of performance reliefArgument & Computation10.1080/194621609035645841:1(47-69)Online publication date: Mar-2010
  • (2009)Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contractArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-009-9076-x17:3(167-182)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2009

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media