Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines of performance relief

Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 128-136

  Dung, Phan Minh ^a   Thang, Phan Minh ^a   Hung, Nguyen Duy ^a  

^a ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Frustration; Impossibility; Legal doctrines

Indexed keywords

CONTRACT LAWS; DISPUTE RESOLUTION; KNOWLEDGE BASIS; LEGAL DOMAINS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

CONTRACTS;

EID: 70450170074     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1568234.1568249     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. K. Atkinson and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law, 13(1):93-131, 2005.
2. T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Agreeing to differ: modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values. Informal Logic, 22:2002, 2003.
3. T. J. M. Bench-Capon, K. Atkinson, and A. Chorley. Persuasion and value in legal argument. Dec. 04 2005.
4. T. J. M. Bench-Capon and G. Sartor. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2):97-143, 2003.
5. P. M. Dung. Logic programming as dialog-game. Technical report, AIT, 1993.
6. P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321-257, 1995.
7. P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artif. Intell, 170(2):114-159, 2006.
8. P. M. Dung and P. M. Thang. Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract. In JURIX, Dec. 2008.
9. P. M. Dung and P. M. Thang. Towards an Argument-based Model of Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contracts. In 9th International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA), Sept. 2008.
10. E. A. Farnsworth, W. F. Young, and C. Sanger. Contracts: Cases and Materials. Foundation Pr; 6 edition, June 2001.
11. A. D. H. Farrell, M. J. Sergot, M. Sallé, and C. Bartolini. Using the event calculus for tracking the normative state of contracts. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst, 14(2-3):99-129, 2005.
12. A. v. d. L. Gardner. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987.
13. T. F. Gordon. The pleadings game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artif. Intell. Law, 2(4):239-292, 1994.
14. T. F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. Walton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15):875-896, 2007.
15. G. Governatori and Z. Milosevic. A formal analysis of a business contract language. Jan. 01 2006.
16. Guenter Freitel. Frustration and Force Majeure. Sweet and Maxell, 2004.
17. L. T. McCarty. An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber. In ICAIL, pages 276-286, 1995.
18. R. A. Posner. Economic Analysis of Law. Wolters Kluwer, Feb. 2007.
19. H. Prakken. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. 2006.
20. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law, 4(3-4):331-368, 1996.
21. J. B. Steven and A. E. Melvin. Contract Law: Selected Source Materials. Foundation Press, 20 July 2007.
22. H. Yoshino. The systematization of legal meta-inference. In ICAIL, pages 266-275, 1995.
23. H. Yoshino. Logical structure of contract law system - for constructing a knowledge base of the united nations convention on contracts for the international sale of goods -. JACIII, 2(1):2-11, 1998.