Abstract
Abstract In this paper it is argued that legal reasoning should be analysed as dialogue games, rather than as logical proofs. This argument is complemented by a set of dialogue rules which define these dialogue games, and an extended example in which the working of (part of) these rules is illustrated.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Paper version not known
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
