GIS v Fishery Context <Back>
BO = BE = (R0,A0,Con) with R0 consists of the following self-describing rules:
• Fishing ← Maps, Fish
stating that having a fish-potential map, Fishery can go fishing if there are fish
• ¬Fish ← OilSpill
stating that the OilSpill reduced fish potential substantially.
• ¬Fishing ← ¬Fish
stating that one can not go fishing without fish out there.
• A0 = {Fish}, Con(Fish) = ¬Fish
representing that fish is commonly assumed to be potential for fishing.
KO = KE = BO = BE representing that both parties are not expected to know that the OilSpill could occur
CKt =(Rt,At,Con) with At =∅ and Rt = { E ⊏ OilSpill ← } stating that the OilSpill occurred after the contract signing event E.
CKd = BO = BE.
Cost function is undefined, representing that neither parties could anything to prevent the oil spill or mitigate its consequences.
From these module the following arguments about factors of the case can be made:
✓OilSpill happened after contract making as CKt ⊢sk E ⊏ OilSpill.
✓OilSpill is unexpected for both parties as there are no arguments supporting OilSpill from BX ∈ {BO,BE}
✓OilSpill falsifies a common belief held by both parties there are fish, since:
BX ⊢cr Fish and CKd ∪ {OilSpill} ⊢sk ¬ Fish.
✓Both parties believed that if there are fish, then the performance of the contract fulfills goal “Fishing” as:
BX ∪ {Maps, Fish} ⊢cr Fishing
✓However, goal “Fishing” is destroyed there are no fish to catch, as:
CKd ∪ {Maps, ¬Fish} ⊢sk ¬ Fishing
Let FRUST be a module representing the doctrine of frustration of purpose. It is easy to see that conditions 1 and 2 of the doctrine hold since FRUST ⊢sk Frustration(contract).
Further, conditions 3 and 4 also hold since there are no arguments for RiskAllocatedTo(Fishery, contract).
Thus MoDiSo will say FRUST ⊢sk Rescind(Fishery, contract), i.e. Fishery could rescind from performing the contract on the grounds of frustration of purpose.
<Back>