David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Argument and Computation 1 (1):47-69 (2011)
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||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Phan Minh Dung & Giovanni Sartor (2011). The Modular Logic of Private International Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (2-3):233-261.
Similar books and articles
Bas 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.
Jenny Buchan, Can Franchise Agreements Provide for Relief Against Franchisor Failure in the Context of the Common Law?
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Pauline Westerman (2010). Arguing About Goals: The Diminishing Scope of Legal Reasoning. [REVIEW] Argumentation 24 (2):211-226.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW] 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.
Dov Guido Boella, Leendert der Torre M. Gabbavany & Serena Villata (forthcoming). Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques. Studia Logica.
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon (2003). Try to See It My Way: Modelling Persuasion in Legal Discourse. [REVIEW] 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.
Added to index2010-07-27
Total downloads24 ( #158,455 of 1,796,218 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #44,643 of 1,796,218 )
How can I increase my downloads?