Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Pleadings Game

An exercise in computational dialectics

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Pleadings Game is a normative formalization and computational model of civil pleading, founded in Roberty Alexy's discourse theory of legal argumentation. The consequences of arguments and counterarguments are modelled using Geffner and Pearl's nonmonotonic logic,conditional entailment. Discourse in focussed using the concepts of issue and relevance. Conflicts between arguments can be resolved by arguing about the validity and priority of rules, at any level. The computational model is fully implemented and has been tested using examples from Article Nine of the Uniform Commercial Code.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, L. E. 1982. The Plain Language Game: Legal Writing Made Clear by Structuring it Well. In Proceedings ofThe International Workshop on Formal Methods in Law. Sankt Augustin: German National Research Center for Computer Science (GMD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy, R. 1989.A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Oxford: Claredon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. 1990.Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT Press.

  • Bayles, M. D. 1990.Procedural Justice; Allocating to Individuals. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Dunne, P. E. S. & Leng, P. H. 1991. Interacting with Knowledge Systems Through Dialogue Games. In Proceedings ofAVIGNON-92, vol. 1, 123–130. Avignon.

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. & Coenen, F. P. 1992a. Isomorphism and Legal Knowledge Based Systems.Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(1): 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Dunne, P. E. S. & Leng, P. H. 1992b. A Dialogue Game for Dialectical Interaction with Expert Systems. In Proceedings ofThe 11th Annual Conference on Expert Systems and their Applications, vol. 1. Avignon.

  • Black, H. C. 1979.Black's Law Dictionary. West Publishing Company.

  • Branting, L. K. 1989. Representing and Reusing Explanations and Legal Precedents. In Proceedings ofThe Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 103–110. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charniak, E. & McDermott, D. 1985.Introduction to Artificial Intelligence. World Student Series. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, W. F. & Gallier, J. H. 1984. Linear-Time Algorithms for Testing the Satisfiability of Propositional Horn Formulae.Journal of Logic Programming 3: 267–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, P. editor. 1972.The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, volume 1, Macmillan Pub. Co., Inc. & The Free Press.

  • Eshghi, K. & Kowalski, R. A. 1988.Abduction as Deduction. Technical report, Dept. of Computing, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London.

  • Felscher, W. 1986. Dialogues as a Foundation for Intuitionistic Logic. InHandbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. III: Alternatives to Classical Logic. eds. D. Gabbay & F. Günther, 341–372. D. Reidel.

  • Fikes, R. E. & Nillson, N. J. 1971. STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving.Artificial Intelligense 2: 189–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geffner, H. & Pearl, J. 1992. Conditional Entailment: Bridging Two Approaches to Default Reasoning.Artificial Intelligence 53(2–3): 209–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F. 1986.The Role of Exceptions in Models of the Law. Formalisierung im Recht und Ansätze juristischer Expertensysteme, eds. R. Traunmüller & H. Fiedler, 52–59. Munich: J. Schweitzer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F. 1989. Issue Spotting in a System for Searching Interpretation Spaces. In Proceedings ofThe Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 157–164. Vancouver, Association for Computing Machiery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F. 1991. An Abductive Theory of Legal Issues.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35: 95–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F. 1993.The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Ph.D. diss., Fachbereich Informatik, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt.

  • Hage, J. C., Span, G. P. J. & Lodder, A. 1992. A Dialogical Model of Legal Reasoning. InLegal Knowledge Based Systems: Information Technology and Law, JURIX'92, eds. C.A. Grutters et al. Lelystad, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Vermande.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junker, U. 1992.Relationship Between Assumptions. Ph.D. diss., Kaiserslautern.

  • Konolige, K. 1990. A General Theory of Abduction. InWorking Notes of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Automated Abduction, 62–66.

  • Levesque, H. J. 1989. A knowledge-Level Account of Abduction. In Proceedings ofThe International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1061–1067. Detroit.

  • Lifschitz, V. 1987. On the Semantics of STRIPS. InReasoning about Action and Plans, eds. M. Georgeff and A. Lansky, Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Lorenz, K. 1961.Arithmetik und Logik als Spiele. Ph.D. diss., Kiel.

  • Loui, R. & Chen, W. 1992. An Argument Game. Technical Report WUCS-92-47, Dept. of Computer Science, Washington University.

  • Loui, R., Norman, J., Olson, J. & Merrill, A. 1994. A Design for Reasoning with Policies, Precedents, and Rationales. In Proceedings ofThe Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 202–211. Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, J. D. 1979. Question-Begging in Non-Cumulative Systems.Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 159–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C. C. 1989. Representing the Structure of a Legal Argument. In Proceedings of theSecond International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 121–127. Vancouver: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. 1988. Clausal Intuitionistic Logic, II. Tableau Proof Procedures.The Journal of Logic Programming, 5: 93–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. & Cohen, W. W. 1992.The Case for Explicit Exceptions.

  • Nitta, K., Wong, S. & Ohtake, Y. 1994. A Computational Model of Trial Reasoning. In Proceedings ofThe Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20–29. Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D. 1985. On the Comparison of Theories: Preferring the Most Specific Explanation. In Proceedings ofThe International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 144–147, Los Angeles.

  • Poole, D. 1990. Hypo-deductive Reasoning for Abduction, Default Reasoning and Design. In Working Notes of theAAAI Spring Symposium on Automated Abduction, 106–110.

  • Prakken, H. 1993.Logical Tools For Modelling Legal Argument. In Proceedings ofThe Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1–9. Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1971.A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.

  • Rescher, N. 1977.Dialectics. State University of New York, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R. & de Kleer, J. 1987. Foundations of Assumption-Based Truth Maintenance Systems, Preliminary Report. In Proceedings ofSixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 183–188.

  • Sartor, G. 1994. A Simple Computational Model for Non-Monotonic and Adversarial Legal Reasoning. In Proceedings ofThe Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 192–201. Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, W. & Smith, J. B. 1990. Author's Argumentation Assistant (AAA): A Hypertext-Based Authoring Tool for Argumentative Texts. InHypertext: Concepts, Systems and Applications, eds. A. Rizk, N. Streitz, and J. Andre, Cambridge University Press.

  • Selman, B. 1990. Computing Explanations. In Working Notes of theAAAI Spring Symposium on Automated Abduction, 82–84.

  • Selman, B. & Levesque, H. J. 1990. Abductive and Deafult Reasoning: A Computational Core. In Proceedings of theEighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 343–348.

  • Skalak, D. B. & Rissland, E. L. 1992. Arguments and Cases: An Inenvitable Intertwining.Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(1): 3–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, R. E. 1987.Expert Systems in Law. Oxford.

  • Toulmin, S. E. 1958.The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German National Research Center for Computer Science (GMD), Institute for Applied Information Technology, Sankt Augustin, Germany

    Thomas F. Gordon

Authors
  1. Thomas F. Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gordon, T.F. The Pleadings Game. Artif Intell Law 2, 239–292 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871972

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871972

Key words

Search

Navigation