Argument and Computation 1 (1):47-69 (2010)
AbstractWe 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
Similar books and articles
Relating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation Via the ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation.Bas van Gijzel & Henry Prakken - 2012 - Argument and Computation 3 (1):21 - 47.
Try to See It My Way: Modelling Persuasion in Legal Discourse. [REVIEW]Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (4):271-287.
Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques.Dov Guido Boella, Leendert der Torre M. Gabbavany & Serena Villata - forthcoming - Studia Logica.
A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context.Eveline T. Feteris - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (3):349-367.
Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Arguing About Goals: The Diminishing Scope of Legal Reasoning. [REVIEW]Pauline Westerman - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (2):211-226.
Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW]Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Can Franchise Agreements Provide for Relief Against Franchisor Failure in the Context of the Common Law?Jenny Buchan - unknown
Modular Argumentation for Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract.Phan Minh Dung & Phan Minh Thang - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):167-182.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Fundamental Properties of Attack Relations in Structured Argumentation with Priorities.Phan Minh Dung & Phan Minh Thang - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence 255 (C):1-42.
The Modular Logic of Private International Law.Phan Minh Dung & Giovanni Sartor - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (2-3):233-261.
Modelling Last-Act Attempted Crime in Criminal Law.Jiraporn Pooksook, Phan Minh Dung, Ken Satoh & Giovanni Sartor - 2019 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 29 (4):327-357.
References found in this work
On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and N-Person Games.Phan Minh Dung - 1995 - Artificial Intelligence 77 (2):321-357.
The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof.Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas Walton - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):875-896.
An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning.A. Bondarenko, P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski & F. Toni - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence 93 (1-2):63-101.
A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning.H. Prakken & G. Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.