Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines of performance relief

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.

[1]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  A Unified Framework for Representation and Development of Dialectical Proof Procedures in Argumentation , 2009, IJCAI.

[2]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Case law in extended argumentation frameworks , 2009, ICAIL.

[3]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract , 2008, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[4]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Assumption-Based Argumentation , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[5]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Abstract Argumentation Scheme Frameworks , 2008, AIMSA.

[6]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Hybrid argumentation and its properties , 2008, COMMA.

[7]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Introducing the Logic and Law Corner , 2008, J. Log. Comput..

[8]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Towards an Argument-based Model of Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contracts , 2008 .

[9]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  Computing ideal sceptical argumentation , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Floris Bex,et al.  Sense-Making Software for Crime Investigation: How to Combine Stories and Arguments? , 2007 .

[13]  Guido Governatori,et al.  A Formal Analysis of a Business Contract Language , 2006, Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst..

[14]  Henry Prakken,et al.  DOI: 10.1017/S000000000000000 Printed in the United Kingdom Formal systems for persuasion dialogue , 2022 .

[15]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation , 2006, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Persuasion and Value in Legal Argument , 2005, J. Log. Comput..

[17]  M. Eisenberg,et al.  Contract Law: Selected Source Materials , 2005 .

[18]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  Using the event calculus for tracking the normative state of contracts , 2005, Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst..

[19]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Legal Case-based Reasoning as Practical Reasoning , 2005, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[20]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Cases and Dialectical Arguments - An Approach to Case-Based Reasoning , 2004, OTM Workshops.

[21]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[22]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[23]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[24]  Henry Prakken,et al.  An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning , 2002, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[25]  Giovanni Sartor,et al.  Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics , 2002, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[26]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[27]  G. Treitel.  Frustration and force majeure , 2004 .

[28]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[29]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[30]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Predicting outcomes of case based legal arguments , 2003, ICAIL.

[31]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Agreeing to Differ : Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values , 2003 .

[32]  David Poole,et al.  Logical Argumentation, Abduction and Bayesian Decision Theory: A Bayesian Approach to Logical Arguments and Its Application to Legal Evidential Reasoning , 2002 .

[33]  C. Reed.  Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values , 2001 .

[34]  Geoffrey J. Samuel.  Sourcebook on obligations and legal remedies , 2000 .

[35]  Louis Kaplow,et al.  Economic Analysis of Law , 2004 .

[36]  Paul Craig,et al.  EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials , 1998 .

[37]  Hajime Yoshino,et al.  Logical Structure of Contract Law System - For Constructing a Knowledge Base of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods - , 1998, J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Informatics.

[38]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[39]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[40]  Hajime Yoshino,et al.  The systematization of legal meta-inference , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[41]  L. Thorne McCarty,et al.  An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[42]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[43]  Carole D. Hafner,et al.  Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[44]  Ewan Mckendrick.  Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials , 1992 .

[45]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[46]  Kevin D. Ashley.  Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals in HYPO , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[47]  Kim Lewison.  The Interpretation of Contracts , 1989 .

[48]  E. Allan Farnsworth,et al.  Contracts : cases and materials , 1980 .