John Henderson
ABSTRACT
This paper describes a computational procedure for interpreting contracts in accordance with the English common law rules of interpretation of contract as stated by Lord Hoffmann. Our approach makes extensive use of an ontology of legal terms, specialised for the context in which the contract was made. We illustrate the approach using three examples closely based on actual cases decided by Lord Hoffmann.
- L E Allen and L J Lysaght. 2015. Modern Logic as a Tool for Remedying Ambiguities in Legal Documents Definitions. In Logic in the Theory and Practice of Lawmaking. Springer, 383--407.Google Scholar
- T Bench-Capon. 2005. Ontologies in AI and Law. In Inteligencia Artificial Aplicada al Derecho. 65--85.Google Scholar
- T Bench-Capon and M Sergot. 1989. Towards a rule-based representation of open texture in law. In Computer Power and Legal Reasoning, Charles Walter (Ed.). Greenwood Press, 39--60.Google Scholar
- G Boella, G Governatori, A Rotolo, and L van der Torre. 2010. A logical understanding of legal interpretation. In Proceedings of Knowledge Representation 2010. 563--565. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G Bowker and S Star. 2000. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R Brachman. 1985. I lied about the trees, or, defaults and definitions in KR. AI magazine 6, 3 (1985), 80.Google Scholar
- L Carroll. 1872. Through the looking glass and what Alice Found There. Macmillan.Google Scholar
- R Gilson, C Sabel, and R Scott. 2014. Text and Context: Contract Interpretation as Contract Design. Cornell Law R. 100 (2014).Google Scholar
- H Hart. 1961. The concept of law. Clarendon Press (1961).Google Scholar
- Y Labrou and T Finin. 1994. A semantics approach for KQML. In Proceedings of the third international conference on Information and knowledge management. ACM, 447--455. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E Levi. 1948. An introduction to legal reasoning. The University of Chicago Law Review 15, 3 (1948), 501--574.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G Miller. 1995. WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun. ACM 38, 11 (1995), 39--41. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M Radin. 1933. Case Law and Stare Decisis. Columbia Law Review 33, 2 (1933), 199--212.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G Sartor, D Walton, F Macagno, and A Rotolo. 2014. Argumentation Schemes for Statutory Interpretation: A Logical Analysis.. In Proceedings of Jurix 2014. 11--20.Google Scholar
- V. Tamma. 2002. An Ontology Model Supporting Multiple Ontologies for Knowledge Sharing. Ph.D. Dissertation. Liverpool.Google Scholar
- J van Diggelen, R-J Beun, Frank Dignum, R van Eijk, and J-J Meyer. 2007. Ontology negotiation in heterogeneous multi-agent systems. Applied Ontology 2, 3--4 (2007), 267--303. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A von der Lieth Gardner. 1987. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT press, Cambridge, Mass. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Interpreting contracts using english common law rules as stated by Lord Hoffmann
Recommendations
From Contracts to E-Contracts: Modeling and Enactment
Contracts are complex to understand, represent and process electronically. Usually, contracts involve various entities such as parties, activities and clauses. An e-contract is a contract modeled, specified, executed and enacted (controlled and ...
Contracts 101
Contract law has many nuances and typically differs among jurisdictions, but having an understanding of the fundamentals is important for anyone involved in negotiating agreements. The Web extra at http://youtu.be/IeGaMT76qBE is an audio recording from ...
Modelling Legal Contracts as Processes
DEXA '00: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems ApplicationsThis paper concentrates on the representation of legal relations that occur between parties once they have entered a contractual agreement and their evolution as the agreement progresses through time. Contracts are regarded as processes and they are ...
Comments