Legal Logic and Legal Integration

1
Legal Logic and Legal Integration
2
The role of classification

• Maas and Willems were competitors in the business
  of road transport.
• Willems sued Maas for damages because Maas
  offended against statutory rules concerning
  tariffs.
• Normally offences against the written law are
  classified as tortuous, unless there is a ground
  of justification.
• Maas defended himself by alleging that Willems
  offended against the same regulations.

3
Supreme Court

• The behaviour of Maas was not tortuous towards
  Willems in case Willems offended against the same
  regulations as Maas.

4
The purpose of classification

• The Supreme Court thought it unattractive if Maas
  were liable towards Willems for an offence that
  Willems committed himself too.
• To avoid liability, the Supreme Court classified
  the case facts in an unexpected way.
• Classification has as one important function to
  determine whether a rule will be applied.

5
Exceptions to rules

• The Court did not want to apply the rule leading
  to liability.
• To that purpose, it declared that the conditions
  of the rule were not satisfied.
• The same result could have been reached by making
  an exception to the rule.

6
Non-applicability and exceptions

• A rule is applicable to a case if and only if the
  facts of the case satisfy the conditions of the
  rule.
• There is an exception to a rule in a particular
  case if and only if
• the rule applicable to that case
• the rule is nevertheless not applied.

7
The Relevance of Legal Logic

• Given a set of legal rules, ones views of how
  these rules operate determine the impact of the
  rules on concrete cases.
• Given a particular view of how rules operate,
  ones views on how cases should be solved
  determines which rules one wants.
• A change in legal logic may result in a change
  in
• the outcomes of legal cases
• which rule contents are desirable.

8
Legal logic
9
Legrands argument (1)

• Question Should European private law be
  harmonized by means of a uniform European Civil
  Code?
• Answer
• No, because amongst others introduction of a
  uniform code in countries without a uniform legal
  mentality does not lead to the desired
  harmonisation.

10
Civil law reasoning

• According to Legrand, legal problem solving in
  the civil law tradition is

• a kind of deductive reasoning
• based on rules the contents of which are posited
  prior to the problems to which they must be
  applied

11
Common law reasoning
According to Legrand, legal problem solving in
the common law tradition, is

• a kind of inductive reasoning
• based on prior cases that do not exhaustively
  specify which facts are relevant for the decision.

12
The case of the murderous spouse

• A rich old lady was nursed by a poor young man.
  After some time the two married, without making
  any special arrangements about their properties.
  According to the Dutch law, this meant that their
  properties were joined together and became their
  common property.
• Not long after their marriage the young man
  murdered his wife. The legal issue at stake was
  whether he could receive half of the marital
  estate because the marriage had ended. The Dutch
  legislation holds that if a marriage ends, the
  marital estate is by default equally divided
  between the former spouses. It does not contain a
  special rule for the division of the marital
  estate in case a husband murders his wife.

13
If Legrand were right

• The civil law tradition cannot take the fact that
  the husband murdered his wife into account, and
  the husband will receive half of the marital
  estate.
• The common law tradition can easily take the fact
  that the husband murdered his wife into account,
  and the husband will not receive half of the
  marital estate.

14
The crucial trade-off

• The very existence of a legal system presupposes
  an a priori distinction between facts that are
  legally relevant and facts that are not.
• If the law is to give satisfactory answers to
  question about what to do, it should not a priori
  disregard potentially relevant facts.

15
A partially open system

• The law is an open system to the extent that it
  allows recognition as legally relevant, of facts
  that are by default irrelevant.
• A legal system cannot be completely open.
• A legal system should not be completely closed.

16
The central question

• Is a legal system in which case law and case
  based reasoning are central, necessarily more
  open than a system in which written laws and rule
  based reasoning are central?

17
Riggs vs. Palmer

• A grandson was mentioned in his grandfathers
  last will.
• The grandson murdered his grandfather in order to
  inherit.
• The grandson did not inherit, although statutory
  law literally construed indicated otherwise.

18
How to draw an analogy?

• Which facts of the case are relevant?Is it
  relevant that the grandson inherited on the
  strength of a last will?
• Under which description are they relevant?Is the
  above fact relevant because it involves his
  grandfathers will? (Would a gift also do?)
• What is their logical role in determining the
  outcome of the case?Does the fact that the
  grandson inherited on the strength of the last
  will plead for or against the conclusion that he
  should inherit?

19
The legal syllogism

• IF C1 and (C2 or C3) THEN Conclusion
• C1 and C3
• THEREFORE Conclusion
• Only the facts C1, C2 and C3 are relevant for the
  application of this rule.
• If this rule is the only one concerning
  Conclusion, then only C1, C2 and C3 are relevant
  for the Conclusion.

20
Reason-based logic

• Reasons are facts that plead for or against the
  presence of other facts.
• Decisive reasons guarantee the presence (or
  absence) of another fact.
• Contributive reasons merely influence the
  presence (or absence) of another fact.

21
Reason-based logic of rule application (1)

• If a rule applies to a case, the conclusion of
  this rule holds in this case.(Application is a
  decisive reason for the rule conclusion.)
• Whether a rule applies to a case depends on the
  balance of contributive reasons for and against
  application.

22
Reasons for application
Reasons against application
apply
not apply
23
Reason-based logic of rule application(2)

• When the conditions of a rule are satisfied, (the
  rule is applicable) this is merely a contributive
  reason for applying the rule.
• When the conditions of a rule are not satisfied,
  this is merely a contributive reason against
  applying the rule.

24
A model of reasoning with rules
Classification of case facts
The rule is applicable
The rule is not applicable
Contributive reason for application
Contributive reason against application
Balancing of contributive reasons
The rule applies / does not apply
25
Reason-based logic and the openness of the law

• On reason-based logic, there is no a priori
  limitation of the facts that are relevant for the
  application of a rule
• There can be reasons to apply a rule analogously.
• There can be reasons for making an exception to
  the rule.

26
Analogy
If

• the facts of a case are similar to those of cases
  to which the rule is applicable, and.
• application of the rule would be conform the
  rules purpose.

this is a contributive reason to apply the rule
by analogy, which must be balanced against the
non-applicability of the rule as a contributive
reason against application.
27
Exceptions

• If

• application of the rule would be against the
  rules purpose, and
• this factor outweighs the rules applicability as
  a reason for application, or
• the rule is in conflict with another rule, and
• this other rule has priority over it

then an exception should be made to the rule.
28
The possibilities of rule-based reasoning
Rule-based reasoning allows the recognition of
new relevant facts as reasons

• to apply a rule (analogously)
• to make an exception to an applicable rule
• for or against a legal conclusion
  (rule-independent reasons)

29
Conclusions regarding Legrands argument

• The difference between case-based reasoning and
  rule-based reasoning as such needs not make any
  difference in the openness of a legal system.
• If the English legal system is more open than the
  continental systems, this is coincidental, rather
  than based on the distinction between the
  relative importance of case law and statutory
  law.
• The difference in legal mentality between the
  common law tradition and the civil law tradition
  needs not be an obstacle to harmonisation through
  the introduction of a uniform civil code.

30
Relevant research questions

• Which factors determine the extent to which a
  legal system is open?
• Under what circumstances should a legal system
  allow the introduction of new relevant facts, or
  disregard facts that are prima facie relevant?
• Can a legal system allow that it has territorial
  differences regarding to its openness?

31
Conclusions regarding legal logic
The implications of a legal system for the
solution of cases depends crucially on both

• the contents of the rules and cases
• the way in which these sources are used in legal
  reasoning

Insight into the logic of legal reasoning is just
as important as insight into the contents of the
valid legal rules.