Doctrine of Frustration of Purpose <1,2,3,4>

Modeling by Modular Argumentation

 

Rescind(CE,  Γ)

Frustration(Γ)

¬ RiskAllocatedTo(CE, Γ)

ViolateBA(Γ)

CommonBelief(λ)

CK ∪ {τ, ¬ λ}   ⊢sk  ¬g

RiskAllocatedTo(CE, Γ)

Krell v Henry


Click here to view the doctrine applied to  Krell v Henry


GIS v Fishery


Click here to view the doctrine applied to GIS and Fishery

PrevOrMiti(CE, ε)

KE ⊢cr   ε

CK ⊢sk ReasonableAction(CE, α)

KE ∪ {α}   ⊢cr  ¬ ε

or

KE ∪ {α, τ, ε}   ⊢cr  g

Contractee CE

BO ∪ {τ, λ}   ⊢sk  g

and

BE ∪ {τ, λ}   ⊢sk  g

CK ∪ {ε}   ⊢sk  ¬ λ

Contractor CO

The context under this doctrine consists of argumentation modules like those under the doctrine of impossibility, together with a goal g representing the principal goal of the party seeking relief in entering into the contract.



This doctrine is graphically represented by the following arguments. Readers interested in assumption-based argumentation frameworks representing the doctrine, are referred to our publications.

Doctrine of Frustration of Purpose <1,2,3,4>

UnExpected(ε)

CK ⊢sk E ⊏ ε

BO ⊢cr   λ

and

BE ⊢cr   λ

neither  BO ⊢cr  ε

nor        BE ⊢cr  ε

Expected(ε)

BO ⊢cr ε

Expected(ε)

BE ⊢cr ε

Contractor CO