Home
 Databases
 WorldLII
 Search
 Feedback
eLaw Journal: Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law 
The Legal Argument Game of LEGAL RELATIONS
Authors:  Layman Allen Professor, University of Michigan 
Charles Saxon Professor, Eastern Michigan University  
Issue:  Volume 5, Number 3 (September 1998) 
Introduction
Levels / Varieties  A. Basic  B. Deontic  C. Wild_Cards 
1. Fundamental  Fundamental_Basic  Fundamental_Deontic  Fundamental_Wild_Cards 
2. Enriched  Enriched_Basic  Enriched_Deontic  Enriched_Wild_Cards 
3. More_Enriched  More_Enriched_Basic  More_Enriched_Deontic  More_Enriched_Wild_Cards 
On your shake, you must set a Goal by moving sufficient of the generated Resources to the Goal section of the playing mat. The Goal must express a DUTY of the player who is the defendant to do something for the player who is the plaintiff (goalsetter) or some equivalent of such a DUTY. Plaintiff indicates that the Goal has been completed by saying "Goal."
Comments
After the Goal has been set, play progresses in a clockwise direction. When it is your turn to play, you must either challenge or transfer zero or more Resources from the remaining pool of Resources to one or more of the Forbidden, Permitted, or Essential Sections (F, P or E) of the Playing Mat.
Comments
For the plaintiff a Solution is a set of premisses from which the Goal may be deduced by means of the rules of inference, constraints, and definitions of The LA Game. For the defendant a Solution is a set of premisses from which the NEGATION of the Goal can be deduced. In attempting to build a Solution:
Comments
You have flubbed, if your move violates the Aclaim or the Cclaim that you are making when you make a move.
Comments
Whether or not it is your turn, you may at any time challenge the other player who has just completed a move. You do so by saying "challenge," and specifying which kind of flub you think the Mover has made. The move of setting a Goal is completed when the Mover says "Goal." The move of transferring Resources to Forbidden, Permitted, or Essential is completed when the last of the Resources is transferred. Prior flubs are insulated by later ones; therefore, you cannot challenge any player except the one who has just completed his play.
Comment
After a challenge, the Burden of Proof is upon the Challenger to show that there is a Solution under the constraints imposed by the moves made. If there has not been a challenge before all of the Resources have been transferred to the Forbidden, Permitted, or Essential sections, then the Burden of Proof is upon the plaintiff to show that there is a Solution to the Goal. The Burden of Proof is sustained by writing a Solution on a sheet of paper or entering it into the computer within the specified time limit (usually one or two minutes).
Comments
After a challenge, a player is Correct if and only if:
Whether or not there been a challenge,
Comment
At any time any other player can call "stall" on the player who is
The stalling player then has some specified time (usually one to two minutes) to complete what she is doing. If she fails to meet the deadline, she loses one point, and another limited time period begins. If she fails to meet the second deadline, she loses another point; and so on.
(See also Appendix A  The Rules of Inference, Constraints, and Deontic LEGAL RELATIONS Definitions)
Resources  Limitations  Legal Argument 
DUTY NO_RIGHT PRIVILEGE RIGHT DISABILITY IMMUNITY POWER LIABILITY CONDITIONAL DONE_BY DONE_FOR IF LS NEGATION OBLIGATORY c1 c2 c3 p1 p2 p3 p4 s1 s2 s3 s4 x1 x2  Forbidden Permitted Essential  Premiss 1 +
Premiss 2 + Premiss 3 + ... Premiss n = Solution

Brief
Summary of The Legal Argument Game 1B
but otherwise,
but otherwise,
Forbidden  Permitted  Essential 
The Resources played in this section MUST NOT be used in the set of premisses offered as a Solution.  The Resources played in this section MAY, but NEED NOT, be used in the set of premisses offered as a Solution.  The Resources transferred into this section MUST be used in an essential way in the set of premisses offered as a Solution. (A Resource is used essentially if and only if the conclusion can no longer be deduced from the remaining premisses when the premiss in which that Resource is used is deleted from the set of premisses offered as a Solution. 
otherwise, a player loses (and scores 6 points).
Has Burden of Proof on a Bold* Challenge  
Has Burden of Proof on a Regular Challenge  
Does NOT Have the Burden of Proof 
* A Cflub challenge of the move immediately following an Aflub
move.
Allen, Layman E. [1997] "Achieving Fluency in Modernized and Formalized Hohfeld: Puzzles and Games for the LEGAL RELATIONS Language", Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, June 30  July 3, 1997, The University of Melbourne Law School, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
[1996] "From the Fundamental Legal Conceptions of Hohfeld to LEGAL RELATIONS: Refining the Enrichment of Solely Deontic LEGAL RELATIONS", pp. 126 in DEONTIC LOGIC, AGENCY AND NORMATIVE SYSTEMS, (Edited by Mark A. Brown and Jose Carmo), Springer and the British Computer Society, 1996. Presented at DEON '96: Third International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Sesimbra, Portugal, 1113, January 1966. (Volume in the WORKSHOPS IN COMPUTING Series edited by C. J. van Rijsbergen).
[1995] "Enriching the Deontic Fundamental Legal Conceptions of Hohfeld", Invited paper presented at the 25th Anniversary Celebration of the Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law, March 1517, l995, Oslo University, Oslo, Norway, to be published in Anniversary Anthology in Computers and Law, Edited by Jon Bing & O. Torvund, TANOpubl., Oslo.
Allen, Layman E. & Saxon, Charles S.[1995] "Better Language, Better Thought, Better Communication: The AHOHFELD Language for Legal Analysis", Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, May 2124, 1995, University of Maryland, College Park, Md.
[1991] "AHohfeld: A Language for Robust Structural Representation of Knowledge in the Legal Domain to Build InterpretationAssistance Expert Systems", Invited paper for the First International Workshop on DEONTIC LOGIC IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, December 1113, 1991, published in DEONTIC LOGIC IN COMPUTER SCIENCE: Normative System Specification (Edited by JohnJules Ch. Meyer and Roel J. Wieringa, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 205224 (1993).
[1986] "Analysis of the Logical Structure of Legal Rules by a Modernized and Formalized Version of Hohfeld's Fundamental Legal Conceptions", 385450, in Automated Analysis of Legal Texts: Logic, Informatics, Law, Edited by Antonio A. Martino and Fiorenza Socci Natali, NorthHolland, Amsterdam.
Hohfeld, Wesley N. [1913] "Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning," 23 YALE L. J. 16 (1913). Reprinted with a New Foreword by Arthur L. Corbin by Yale University Press, London & New Haven (1964).
The Rules of Inference, Constraints, and Deontic LEGAL RELATIONS Definitions
A. The Five Rules of Inference of the Legal Argument Game
In the basis of the Logic of LEGAL RELATIONS the following five rule schemata of inference are assumed. Each of these may be used by players in The LA Games. They are all of the form:
A, ... N * S. This is an abbreviated way of saying: From the statements A through N, it is valid to infer statement S.
There are four elements in the presentation of each rule schema (hereafter,
called rules) below:
(1) the name of the rule  (2) an explanation of the name 
(3) statement of the rule in notation  
(4) statement of the rule in text. 
Rules:
D2o:  Outrule for the DONE_BY operator 
D2(s,p) * s  
From "The state_of_affairs_s is brought about by (i.e., DONE_BY) person_p", it is valid to infer "The state_of_affairs_s is so". 
IFo:  Outrule for the IF operator 
IF(r,s), r * s  
From "IF the state_of_affairs_r is so, the state_of_affairs_s is so" and "The state_of_affairs_r is so", it is valid to infer "The state_of_affairs_s is so". 
NEGNEGo:  Outrule for double NEGATION 
NEG(NEG(s)) * s  
From "IT IS NOT SO THAT IT IS NOT SO THAT the state_of_affairs_s is so", it is valid to infer "The state_of_affairs_s is so". 
POWERoD2oLRi:  The outoutinrule for the exercise of a POWER 
POWER(D2(x,p),LR)), D2(x,p) * LR  
From "Person_p has the POWER to create LEGAL_RELATION_LR by exercising that POWER" and "Person_p exercises that POWER (exercise_x of that POWER is DONE_BY Person_p)", it is valid to infer "The LEGAL_RELATION_LR is so". 
CONDITIONALoLRi:  Outinrule for the CONDITIONAL operator 
CONDITIONAL(c,LR), c * LR  
From "The CONDITIONAL (upon fulfillment of condition_c) LEGAL_RELATION_LR is so" and "Conditionc has been fulfilled, i.e., c is so", it is valid to infer "LEGAL_RELATION_LR is so". 
From these five rules two others can be derived that are used frequently
in the play of the LA Game to infer some LEGAL RELATION
from the legally
determined exercise of a POWER or the legally determined fulfillment of
the condition of a CONDITIONAL LEGAL RELATION.
These are the POWERoD2oD2IFoLRi
and CONDITIONALoD2IFoLRi rules.
POWERoD2oD2IFoLRi:  The outoutoutinrule for the exercise of a POWER 
POWER(D2(x,p),LR), D2(s,p), D2(IF(D2(s,p),D2(x,p)),LS) ** LR.  
From POWER(D2(x,p),LR) and D2(s,p) and D2(IF(D2(s,p),D2(x,p)),LS), it can be derived that it is valid to infer LR. 
In other words, given (1) that person_p has the POWER to create LEGAL_RELATION_LR
and (2) that state_of_affairs_s is DONE_BY person_p
and (3) that the legal
system determines that IF state_of_affairs_s is DONE_BY person_p THEN the
exercise of POWER is DONE_BY person_p,
it can be derived that it is valid
to infer (4) that the LEGAL_RELATION_LR is created.
CONDITIONALoD2IFoLRi:  Outoutinrule for the CONDITIONAL operator 
CONDITIONAL(c,LR), s, D2(IF(s,c),LS) ** LR.  
From CONDITIONAL(c,LR) and s and D2(IF(s,c),LS), it can be derived that it is valid to infer LR. 
In other words,, given (1) that CONDITIONAL_LEGAL_RELATION_LR (conditioned upon fulfillment of condition_c) is so and (2) that state_of_affairs_s is so and (3) that the legal systems determines that IF state_of_affairs_s is so, THEN condition_c is fulfilled, it can be derived that it is valid to infer (4) that LEGAL_RELATION_LR is created.
The two similar derivations of this pair of derived rules are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Proofs of Two Derived Rules of Inference
POWERoD2oD2IFoLRi  CONDITIONALoD2IFoLRi 
1 POWER(D2(x,p),LR) suppose  1 CONDITIONAL(c,LR) suppose 
2 D2(s,p) suppose  2 s suppose 
3 _ D2(IF(D2(s,p),D2(x,p),LS) suppose  3 _ D2(IF(s,c),LS) suppose 
4 IF(D2(s,p),D2(x,p) 3,D2o  4 IF(s,c) 3,D2o 
5 D2(x,p) 4,2,IFo  5 c 4,2,IFo 
6 LR 1,5,POWERoD2oLRi  6 LR 1,5,CONDITIONALoLRi 
B. Constraints
In the reasoning in the LA Games there are also a pair of constraints
upon what can be assumed as premisses. These constraints are
what make
the reasoning involved these games in accord with legal reality— specifically,
in accord with the jurisprudence of legal
realism. The two constraints
are about what can be assumed as a premiss; they are the following:
Similarly, IF_connections between D2(s,p) and D2(x,p) are of a type
that occur between the factual particulars of what some specified
person
has done and whether having done so constitutes an exercise of his POWER
to create a LEGAL RELATION  another legal characterization
that is only
DONE_BY the legal system. They, also, cannot be assumed as premisses
of a legal argument. Players of the LA Games cannot assume IF(D2(s,p),D2(x,p))
as a premiss. If they need IF(D2(s,p),D2(x,p)),
what they must assume is
that the legal system determines IF(D2(s,p),D2(x,p)), that is, D2(IF(D2(s,p),D2(x,p)),LS).
These rules of inference and constraints, in combination with the definitions
presented next, are the concepts players use in reasoning
about ways to
reach their Goals in playing the LA Games.
C. Definitions of the Deontic (UNCONDITIONAL) and CONDITIONAL LEGAL
RELATIONS
In the Basic variety of LA Games there are four deontic LEGAL RELATIONS
that do not explicitly use a deontic operator. Each of these
is logically
equivalent to each of the others:
DUTY(sk,pi,pj)  Person_pj has a DUTY to person_pi to do sk. 
RIGHT(sk,pj,pi)  Person_pi has a RIGHT that person_pj do sk. 
NEG(PRIVILEGE(NEG(sk),pi,pj))  IT IS NOT SO THAT person_pj has a PRIVILEGE with respect to person_pi to do NOT sk. 
NEG(NO_RIGHT(sk,pj,pi))  IT IS NOT SO THAT person_pi has a NO_RIGHT that person_pj do sk. 
where i and j are different numerals from 1 to 4, and k is also a numeral from 1 to 4.
In the Deontic variety of LA Games a fifth equivalent expression of
a deontic LEGAL RELATION is possible, one that uses the deontic
operator,
O, namely:
O(D2(D4(sk,pi),pj))  IT IS OBLIGATORY THAT (sk be DONE_FOR person_pi) be DONE_BY person_pj. 
CONDITIONAL LEGAL RELATIONS are of two types: capacitive and other.
The capacitivetype are POWER or POWERequivalent LEGAL RELATIONS
or their
NEGATIONS that are associated with changes in legal state that are brought
about by states of affairs DONE_BY legal persons
(agentive). The othertype
of CONDITIONAL LEGAL RELATIONS are associated with changes in legal states
that are brought about by
states of affairs that are NOT DONE_BY legal
persons (nonagentive).
Figure 3. Four Sets of Five Equivalent FirstLevel Deontic LEGAL RELATIONS
DUTY(s,pi,pj)
RIGHT(s,pj,pi) O(D2(D4(s,pi),pj)) NEG(NO_RIGHT(s,pj,pi)) NEG(PRIVILEGE(NEG(s),pi,pj)) 
NEG(DUTY(s,pi,pj))
NEG(RIGHT(s,pj,pi)) NEG(O(D2(D4(s,pi),pj))) NO_RIGHT(s,pj,pi) PRIVILEGE(NEG(s),pi,pj) 
DUTY(NEG(s),pi,pj)
RIGHT(NEG(s),pj,pi) O(D2(D4(NEG(s),pi),pj)) NEG(NO_RIGHT(NEG(s),pj,pi)) NEG(PRIVILEGE(s,pi,pj)) 
NEG(DUTY(NEG(s),pi,pj))
NEG(RIGHT(NEG(s),pj,pi)) NEG(O(D2(D4(NEG(s),pi),pj))) NO_RIGHT(NEG(s),pj,pi) PRIVILEGE(s,pi,pj) 
"Person_p has POWER to create LEGAL_RELATION_LR." is equal to by stipulated
definition:
"LEGAL_RELATON_LR has LIABILITY of being created by person_p" is equal
to by stipulated definition:
DISABILITYdf: DISABILITY(D2(x,p),LR)
=df NEG(POWER(D2(x,p),LR))
"Person_p has DISABILITY to create LEGAL_RELATON_LR" is equal to by
stipulated definition:
IMMUNITYdf: IMMUNITY(LR, D2(x,p))
=df NEG(POWER(D2(x,p),LR))
"LEGAL_RELATON_LR has IMMUNITY of being created by person_p" is equal
to by stipulated definition:
From these four definitions there are two sets of four equivalent
deontic LEGAL RELATIONS that can be derived. Both sets are summarized
in
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Two Sets of Four Equivalent HigherLevel Capacitive LEGAL RELATIONS
POWER(D2(x,p),LR)
LIABILITY(LR,D2(x,p)) NEG(DISABILITY(D2(x,p),LR)) NEG(IMMUNITY(LR,D2(x,p))) 
NEG(POWER(D2(x,p,)LR))
NEG(LIABILITY(LR,D2(x,p))) DISABILITY(D2(x,p),LR) IMMUNITY(LR,D2(x,p)) 
"There is a CONDITIONAL_LEGAL_RELATION_CLR that LEGAL_RELATION_LR will
be created by the fulfillment of condition_c." is equal to
by stipulated
definition:
Example of the Play of Some Matches of the Legal Argument Game
Match 5A
Goal: DUTY(s3,p2,p3)
The 66 resources generated for Match 5A are shown above with four of them underlined to indicate that they were selected by the first player (plaintiff) to set the Goal of DUTY(s3,p2,p3). There are forms for matches of the LA Game that can be downloaded from the Internet site for the LA Game like Match 5A above. When these forms are printed out, they provide materials for a paper and pencil version of the LA Game to be played between two players. The moves of the players can be written into a summary table provided like the one below.
After the Goal is set by the plaintiff, it is the defendant’s turn to respond by transferring up to three of the Resources to one of the three specified sections on the playing mat: the Forbidden section, the Permitted are or the Essential section. In Match 5A defendant seeks to force plaintiff to build a fourthlevel Solution (one that uses three capacitive operators and, thus, many more resources than are available in the Resources section) by transferring IMMUNITY, LIABILITY, and LIABILITY from the Resources into the Essential section. His objective in doing so is to prevent the plaintiff from being able to construct a set of premisses from which the Goal can be inferred. He indicates this Move 1 by underlining the Resources that are being transferred and writing them in the Essential column of Row 1.
Summary of Play after Goal is Set
1 2 
IMMUN* RIGHT IF LS  IMMUN LIAB LIAB  
3 4 
LIAB* COND* O  COND COND O  
5 6 
D4* D4* x2  D4 D4 D4  
7 8 
c1* c1 LS NEG  c1 c2 c3  
9 10 
x1* x1 IF c2  x1 x2 x2  
11 12 
c3* c3 D2 D2  s1 s1 s1  
13 14 
D2 D2 D2 D2 D2  p1 p1 p1  
15 16 
s1* s2 s2 s3  s4 s4 s4  
17 18 
D2 D2 D2  Challenges, Aflub s4* p1 p2 p3 
The response of the plaintiff to defendant’s Move 1 is to shift the IMMUNITY from the Essential section to the Permitted section and transfer RIGHT, IF, and LS from the Resources to the Permitted section. (Recall that plaintiffs can transfer the equivalent of five resources, where 1 shift = 2 transfers.) Her aim is to reduce the level of the Solution to a thirdlevel one (by shifting IMMUNITY) and to make available for use in her Solution the RIGHT, IF and LS. She indicates her Move 2 by underlining the shifted IMMUNITY (in Essential) and the transferred RIGHT, IF, and LS (in Resources) and writes the four of them in the Permitted column of Row 2. She also adds * to IMMUNITY to indicate that it was shifted.
After the first two moves have been made, six additional ones of the Resources have been transferred to the playing mat. To indicate these transfers each of the six are underlined so that the state of the Resources that confronts the defendant as he prepares to make Move 3 is the following:
Resources:
The play continues in this manner with defendant making the oddnumbered
moves and the plaintiff making the evennumbered moves until
one of the
players challenges or the Resources have all been transferred. The motivation
of the players for each move made for
Moves 3 through 18 is described in
detail below.
Move 4. Plaintiff responds by shifting LIABILITY and COND from Essential to Permitted, reducing the level of Solution that must be built to a thirdlevel one, and prevents defendant from forcing even further use of deontic operators by transferring the only remaining O from Resources to Permitted.
Move 5. Defendant seeks to force the use of two extra ‘D4's by transferring D4, D4, and D4 to Essential.
Move 6. Plaintiff responds by shifting two of the ‘D4's from Essential to Permitted, thereby eliminating the forced use of the two extra ‘D4's, and transfers one of the ‘x2's from Resources to Permitted to prevent defendant from forcing the use of extra ‘x2's.
Move 7. Defendant seeks to force plaintiff to use extra ‘c’s by transferring c1, c2, and c3 to Essential.
Move 8. Plaintiff eliminates the forced use of c1 shifting it from Essential to Permitted, prevents defendant from forcing the use of the remaining c1 and NEG by transferring them from Resources to Permitted, and transfers LS from Resources to Permitted to be available for use in a Solution.
Move 9. Defendant seeks to force the use of extra ‘x’s by transferring x1, x2, and x2 to Essential.
Move 10. Plaintiff eliminates the forced use of x1 by shifting it from Essential to Permitted, prevents defendant from forcing the use of the remaining x1 by transferring it to Permitted, and transfers IF and c2 from Resources to Permitted to be available for use in a Solution.
Move 11. Defendant seeks to force the use of extra ‘s1’s by transferring s1, s1, and s1 to Essential.
Move 12. Plaintiff eliminates the forced use of c3 (from Move 7) by shifting it from Essential to Permitted, prevents defendant from forcing the use of the remaining c3 by transferring it to Permitted, and transfers D2 and D2 from Resources to Permitted to be available for use in a Solution.
Move 13. Defendant seeks to force the use of extra ‘p1’s by transferring p1, p1, and p1 to Essential.
Move 14. Plaintiff is aware that he can use all three of the ‘p1's in a Solution that involves POWER and that he will need many ‘D2's for such a Solution; so, he transfers five ‘D2's from Resources to Permitted to make them available for use in a Solution.
Move 15. Defendant seeks to force the use of extra ‘s4’s by transferring s4, s4, and s4 to Essential.
Move 16. Plaintiff eliminates the forced use of the extra s1 (from Move 11) by shifting it from Essential to Permitted, prevents defendant from forcing the use of an extra s3 by transferring it from Resources to Permitted, and transfers s2 and s2 from Resources to Permitted to make them available for use in a Solution (but also blocking their being used by defendant to force use of extra ‘s2's in the Solution.
At this stage of the play after Move 16, the state of the Resources is as follows:
Resources:
The 50 underlined resources have been transferred to the playing mat, and only the following 16 resources are available for further
transfer: D2 D2 D2 D2 LS NEG p1 p2 p2 p2 p3 p3 p3 p3 p3 s3.
Move 18. Plaintiff challenges, declaring that defendant by his last move has made an Aflub; his move allows the plaintiff to achieve a Solution on her next move.
She then writes as her Solution the following five premisses:
using all 14 of the following resources in Essential: LIABILITY COND O D4 c2 x2 x2 s1 s1 p1 p1 p1 s4 and s4. She also had available in Permitted the following 16 other resources used in the five premisses: IF LS LS IF c2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 D2 s3 p1 p2 p3.
She then completes the proof to show that the conclusion, DUTY(s3,p2,p3), i.e., the Goal, can be deduced from the Solution by means
of the rules of inference and definitions available,
Now let us consider what might have happened under a different play
of Match 5, that is, a play with the same set of Resources as
those for
Match 5A, but with some different moves by the players. (This, incidentally,
illustrates that there can be many different
plays with each of the sets
of Resources that can be downloaded from the LA Game site.) Suppose (1)
that in Match 5B, the same
Goal is set as was set in Match 5A, and (2)
that the first 16 moves were the same so that the state of the Resources
just after
Move 16 are the same as those shown above. It is defendant’s
turn, and this time he elects to pursue a different strategy at this
stage.
Summary of Play after Goal is Set in Match 5B
1 : 16 

17: 18 
p3* p3* p3  p3 p3 p3  
19 20 
D2  p3* p3* D2  p3 p3 
21 22 
s4* p2* p1  p2 p2 p2  
23 24 
pass  pass Challenges, Aflub p2* 
pass 
Move 18. Plaintiff responds by (a) shifting two of the ‘p3's from Essential to Permitted, reducing the number of ‘p3's that have to be used in the Solution and (b) transferring one of the remaining ‘p3's from Resources to Permitted to prevent defendant from forcing her to use that one.
Move 19. Defendant seeks to force use of extra ‘p3's by transferring p3, and p3 from Resources to Essential and to make unavailable a D2 that he thinks that Plaintiff might need by transferring D2 from Resources to Forbidden.
Move 20. Plaintiff responds by shifting two of the extra ‘p3's from Essential to Permitted and transferring a D2 from Resources to Permitted to be available for use in a Solution.
Move 21. Defendant seeks to force the use of extra ‘p2’s by transferring p2, p2, and p2 to Essential.
Move 22. Plaintiff eliminates the forced use of an extra s4 (from Move 15) by shifting an s4 from Essential to Permitted and also eliminates the forced use of one of the ‘p2's by the same kind of shift of a p2. She also makes available for use in the Solution the needed p1 by transferring p1 from Resources to Permitted.
Move 23. In analyzing the situation defendant realizes (a) that plaintiff does not need any of the remaining ‘D2's for a Solution (so, there is no effective constraint imposed upon plaintiff by transferring any of them to Forbidden, Permitted, or Essential) and (b) that she also does not need the LS or NEG that remains nor will it help to try to force her to use the LS or NEG (so, there is no point in transferring either of them either). So, defendant passes, hoping that plaintiff (a) will not recognize that she can build a Solution after her next move and (b) will fail to challenge, and thus, enable him to challenge her Cflub failure to challenge his Aflub when she could have done so correctly.
Move 24. But plaintiff is not fooled. She challenges that there is an Aflub, that is, that after defendant’s last move it is possible for plaintiff to build a Solution after her next move. She then proceeds to get rid of the last remaining extra p2 by shifting it from Essential to Permitted.
However, at Move 23 when defendant passed, he failed to realize that
he could have correctly made an Aflub challenge of Plaintiff’s
prior move.
By simply transferring a D2 from Resources to Permitted, he could have
reached the NEGATION of the plaintiff’s Goal,
that is NEG(DUTY(s3,p2,p3)).
He then could have constructed the following Solution:
After players have written out the proofs a few times, they will
realize that the proofs are all similar; they all involve repeated
applications
of POWERoD2oD2IFoLRi and CONDITIONALoD2IFoLRi and definitions. That is
why the writing of proofs is NOT required in
sustaining the Burden of Proof.
Only the writing of the Solution is required to sustain it.
By being careful and competent in his reasoning the defendant could
have won Match 5B. A similar strategy will work for those who
aspire to
become fluent in the LEGAL RELATIONS Language. By carefully reading and
following the play of these two matches of the
LA Game, stepbystep through
each match, such learners can get a good start on appreciating the nature
and strategies of playing
the LA Games. This, in turn, will enable them
to then use the play of such games to enhance their fluency in the LEGAL
RELATIONS
Language.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy

Disclaimers

Privacy Policy

Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurdochUeJlLaw/1998/21.html