nach oben

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Erschienen in:

01.09.2009

Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract

verfasst von: Phan Minh Dung, Phan Minh Thang

Erschienen in: Artificial Intelligence and Law | Ausgabe 3/2009

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

To create a programming environment for contract dispute resolution, we propose an extension of assumption-based argumentation into modular assumption-based argumentation in which different modules of argumentation representing different knowledge bases for reasoning about beliefs and facts and for representation and reasoning with the legal doctrines could be built and assembled together. A distinct novel feature of modular argumentation in compare with other modular logic-based systems like Prolog is that it allows references to different semantics in the same module at the same time, a feature critically important for application of argumentation in legal domains like contract dispute resolution where the outcomes of court cases often depend on whether credulous or skeptical modes of reasoning were applied by the contract parties. We apply the new framework to model the doctrines of contract breach and mutual mistake.

Nächster Artikel PADUA: a protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

This paper is an extended version of Dung and Thang (2008).

One can ask why not \({\mathcal{A}}_1 =\{\}\) or \({\mathcal{A}}_1 =\{Topasz,\neg Topasz, Diamond, \neg Diamond\}\). Wood was aware that the stone could possibly be a topasz but may be not. Therefore, it is not possible that \({\mathcal{A}}_1 =\{\}\). The idea that the stone could be a diamond does not come up at all at the time of making the deal. Hence no contract party could assume that it could be a Diamond. Therefore it is not possible that \({\mathcal{A}}_1 =\{Topasz,\neg Topasz, Diamond, \neg Diamond\}\).

For example, CO sells to CE an annuity (T) on some person P’s life. Then P must be alive (λ = alive) (CK could contain a rule like annuity → alive). But if if it turns out that P was already dead at the time of making the contract (δ = dead) then CE can rescind the contract.

In Dung and Thang (2008), we have required that \(\{\alpha\} \cup KO \vdash_{sk} \delta\) that is a rather strong condition as practically one may take precaution to prevent fire and fire could still happen as there are no fire prevention system that works perfectly in all scenarios.

Note that we make a simplifying assumption here that the contractee pays only after the contractor has delivered the promised service. Many contracts require the contractee to pay in advance or make a deposit. These contracts would require slightly different rules here.

\(\overline{CX}\) is the opposite party of CX.

It is not difficult to see that the extension is also grounded and stable.

Ashley KD (1991) Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. Int J Man Mach Stud 34(6):753–796CrossRef

Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2008) Abstract argumentation scheme frameworks. In: AIMSA ’08: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 220–234

Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM (2005) Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning. Artif Intell Law 13(1):93–131CrossRef

Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143MATHCrossRef

Bench-Capon T, Prakken H (2008) Introducing the logic and law corner. J Logic Comput 18(1):1–12MATHCrossRef

Bench-Capon TJM, Atkinson K, Chorley A (2005) Persuasion and value in legal argument. J Logic Comput 15(6):1075–1097MATHCrossRefMathSciNet

Berman DH, Hafner CD (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: ICAIL ’93: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 50–59

Bex F, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artif Intell Law 11(2):125–165CrossRef

Bex F, Van den Braak S, Van Oostendorp H, Prakken H, Verheij B, Vreeswijk G (2007) Sense-making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments? Law Probab Risk 6(1–4):145–168CrossRef

Bondarenko A, Dung PM, Kowalski RA, Toni F (1997) An abstract argumentation theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif Intell 93(1–2):63–101MATHCrossRefMathSciNet

Brüninghaus S, Ashley K (2003) Predicting outcomes of case-based legal arguments. In: ICAIL 2003. ACM Press, NewYork

Douglas W (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. ISBN: 080582071X DDC: 168 LCC: BC183. LEA, Mahwah, NJ, alk. paper edition

Dung PM (1993) Logic programming as dialog-game. Technical report, AIT

Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–257MATHCrossRefMathSciNet

Dung PM, Thang PM (2008) Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract. In: Proceedings of the 21st annual conference, JURIX 2008. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, Florence, vol 189, pp 108–117

Dung PM, Kowalski R, Toni F (2006) Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artif Intell 170(2):114–159MATHCrossRefMathSciNet

Dung PM, Mancarella P, Toni F (2007) Computing ideal skeptical argumentation. Artif Intell 171(10–15):642–674MATHCrossRefMathSciNet

Dung PM, Kowalski Robert A, Toni F (2009) Argumentation in AI, chapter assumption-based argumentation. Springer, Berlin

Dung PM, Thang PM, Hung ND (2009) Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines. In: ICAIL 2009. ACM Press, Barcelona

Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (2002) Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif Intell 141(1):187–203MATHCrossRefMathSciNet

Farnsworth EA, Young WF, Sanger C (2001) Contracts: cases and materials. ISBN: 1587780577. Foundation Press (6th edn)

Gardner AvdL (1987) An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. Mit press series of artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge

Gordon TF (1994) The pleadings game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artif Intell Law 2(4):239–292CrossRef

Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–15):875–896MATHCrossRefMathSciNet

Guenter F (2004) Frustration and force majeure, 2nd edn. Sweet and Maxell Press, UK

Lodder A, Zelznikow J (2005) Developing an online dispute resolution environment: dialogue tools and negotiation support systems in a three-step model. Harvard Negotiation Law Rev 10:287–337

McCarty LT (1995) An implementation of eisner v. macomber. In: ICAIL ’95: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 276–286

Poole D (2001) Logical argumentation, abduction and Bayesian decision theory: a Bayesian approach to logical arguments and it’s application to legal evidential reasoning. Cardozo Law Rev 22(5–6):1733–1746

Posner RA (2007) Economic analysis of law. Wolters Kluwer Law and Business Press

Prakken H (2002) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Law 10(1–3):113–133CrossRef

Prakken H (2006) Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Eng Rev 1:163–188CrossRef

Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):331–368CrossRef

Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6(2–4):231–287CrossRef

Rissland E, Skalak D (1991) Cabaret: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. Int J Man Mach Stud Arch 34(6):839–887CrossRef

Roth B, Verheij B (2004) Cases and dialectical arguments—an approach to case-based reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. In: OTM workshops. Springer, Berlin, vol 3292, pp 634–651

Sartor G (2002) Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artif Intell Law 10(1):95–112CrossRef

Sergot MJ, Sadri F, Kowalski RA, Kriwaczek F, Hammond P, Cory HT (1986) The british nationality act as a logic program. Commun ACM 29(5):370–386CrossRef

Steven JB, Melvin AE (2007) Contract law: selected source materials. 2007 Edition. Foundation Press

Verheij B (2003) Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artif Intell Law 11(2–3):167–195CrossRef

Verheij B (2008) About the logical relations between cases and rules. In: JURIX08. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, Florence, vol 189, pp 21–32

Yoshino H (1995) The systematization of legal meta-inference. In: ICAIL, pp 266–275

Yoshino H (1998) Logical structure of contract law system for constructing a knowledge base of the united nations convention on contracts for the international sale of goods. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Inform (JACIII) 2(1):2–11MathSciNet

Titel: Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract
verfasst von: Phan Minh Dung
Phan Minh Thang
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2009
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Artificial Intelligence and Law / Ausgabe 3/2009
Print ISSN: 0924-8463
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8382
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-009-9076-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner