INCAS: a legal expert system for contract terms in electronic commerce

Electronic commerce is doing business via electronic networks. Paper-based trade documents such as, for example, request for quotation, purchase order or invoice are replaced by electronic messages, in particular Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) messages. These electronic messages are not only transmitted much faster than paper-based documents, but they can also be processed automatically by computers. An example of this automated processing of electronic messages is electronic contracting and negotiation where the actual trade contract is on-line negotiated and concluded via an electronic network. We present the legal expert system INCAS that can provide on-line explanations about the use of Incoterms in trade contracts. Incoterms stipulate which party (buyer or seller) is responsible for arranging and paying transport of the goods, and arranging the documents necessary for this transport (e.g. export and import clearance documents, certification of origin, quality certificates etc.). INCAS is implemented in the programming language Prolog. We also explain how the defeasible reasoning capability of Prolog is essential for modelling the reasoning about the Incoterms.

[1]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A System for Defeasible Argumentation, with Defeasible Priorities , 1996, Artificial Intelligence Today.

[2]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  The British Nationality Act as a logic program , 1986, CACM.

[3]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[4]  Yao-Hua Tan,et al.  The Many Faces of Defeasibility in Defeasible Deontic Logic , 1997 .

[5]  Ivan Bratko,et al.  Prolog Programming for Artificial Intelligence , 1986 .

[6]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  Why Defeasible Deontic Logic needs a Multi Preference Semantics , 1995, ECSQARU.

[7]  Andrew Whinston,et al.  Frontiers of Electronic Commerce , 1996 .

[8]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A logical framework for modelling legal argument , 1993, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[9]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  Cancelling and Overshadowing: Two Types of Defeasibility in Defeasible Deontic Logic , 1995, IJCAI.

[10]  Philip Leith,et al.  Fundamental Errors in Legal Logic Programming , 1986, Comput. J..

[11]  Thomas F. Gordon,et al.  Pleadings game - an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice , 1995 .

[12]  L. Thorne McCarty.  Defeasible Deontic Reasoning , 1994, Fundam. Informaticae.

[13]  Andreas Mitrakas,et al.  Open Edi and Law in EUrope A Regulatory Framework , 1997 .

[14]  Ronald M. Lee,et al.  DX: A Deontic Expert System , 1995, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Patrick Brézillon,et al.  Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence , 1999 .

[16]  Jan Ramberg,et al.  Incoterms in the Era of Electronic Data Interchange , 1990 .

[17]  John R. Searle,et al.  Minds, brains, and programs , 1980, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[18]  Richard E. Susskind,et al.  Expert systems in law , 1987 .

[19]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument , 1997 .

[20]  Gerhard Brewka,et al.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Logical Foundations of Commonsense By Gerhard Brewka (Cambridge University Press, 1991) , 1991, SGAR.

[21]  Ronald M. Lee.  INTERPROCS: a Java-based prototyping environment for distributed electronic trade procedures , 1998, Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[22]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  Argument moves in a rule-guided domain , 1991, ICAIL '91.

[23]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Contrary-to-duty obligations , 1996, Stud Logica.