Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines of performance relief
Argument and Computation 1 (1):47-69 (2011)
| Abstract | We present an argument-based formalism of contract dispute resolution following a modern view that the court would resolve a contract dispute by enforcing an interpretation of contract that reasonably represents the mutual intention of contract parties. Legal doctrines provide principles, rules and guidelines for the court to objectively arrive at such an interpretation. In this paper, we establish the appropriateness of the formalism by applying it to resolve disputes about performance relief with the legal doctrines of impossibility and frustration of purpose in common laws of contract. The formalism is based on modular argumentation, a recently proposed extension of assumption-based argumentation for modelling contract dispute resolution | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBas van Gijzel & Henry Prakken (2012). Relating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation Via the ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation. Argument and Computation 3 (1):21 - 47.
Kurt Nutting (2002). Legal Practices and the Reason of the Law. Argumentation 16 (1):111-133.
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Pauline Westerman (2010). Arguing About Goals: The Diminishing Scope of Legal Reasoning. Argumentation 24 (2):211-226.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Eveline T. Feteris (2002). A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context. Argumentation 16 (3):349-367.
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon (2003). Try to See It My Way: Modelling Persuasion in Legal Discourse. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (4):271-287.
Phan Minh Dung & Phan Minh Thang (2009). Modular Argumentation for Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):167-182.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2010-07-27Total downloads1 ( #274,651 of 549,067 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
