In this paper we apply a general account of practical reasoning to arguing about legal cases. In particular, we provide a reconstruction of the reasoning of the majority and dissenting opinions for a particular well-known case from property law. This is done through the use of Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agents to replicate the contrasting views involved in the actual decision. This reconstruction suggests that the reasoning involved can be separated into three distinct levels: factual and normative levels and a level connecting (...) the two, with conclusions at one level forming premises at the next. We begin by summarising our general approach, which uses instantiations of an argumentation scheme to provide presumptive justifications for actions, and critical questions to identify arguments which attack these justifications. These arguments and attacks are organised into argumentation frameworks to identify the status of individual arguments. We then discuss the levels of reasoning that occur in this reconstruction and the properties and significance of each of these levels. We illustrate the different levels with short examples and also include a discussion of the role of precedents within these levels of reasoning. (shrink)

The paper discusses normative systems and their revision within an algebraic framework. If a system is logically well-formed, certain norms, called connecting norms, determine the system as a whole. It is maintained that, if the system is well-formed, a relation at least as low as determines a lattice or quasi-lattice of its connecting norms. The ideas are presented mainly in the form of comments on a legal example concerning acquisition of movable property by extinction of another person's previous rights.

We extend the monotonic and regular modal logics to the multi-modal cue, and give semantical characterization w.r.t. a semantics of minimal frames. For this we introduce a calculus over neighbourhoods and we obtain simpler conditions than those from the literature.

Legal terms, such as “ownership,”“contract,”“validity,”“negligence,” are used as middle terms in legal deduction. The paper distinguishes two problems regarding this use. One is the logical function of terms for deduction within a normative system. Specific problems dealt with in this connection are meaning, definition, and economy of expression. The other problem connected with middle terms is the “moulding” and possible manipulation of the meaning of legal terms, for arriving at desired conclusions in a given scheme of inference. It is indicated (...) how the moulding of contested legal concepts, if not restricted, will obscure the ratio of legal rules. This problem is relevant, inter alia, to arguments ex analogia in the law. (shrink)

In the present paper we study how subsystems of a normative system can be combined, and the role of such combinations for the understanding of hypothetical legal consequences. A combination of two subsystems is often accomplished by a normative correlation or an intermediate concept. To obtain a detailed analysis of such phenomena we use an algebraic framework. Normative systems are represented as algebraic structures over sets of conditions. This representation makes it possible to study normative systems using an extension of (...) the theory of Boolean algebras, called the theory of Boolean quasi‐orderings. (shrink)