Legal Domain-Specific Reasoned Argument

A Legal Domain-Specific Reasoned Argument is a domain-specific reasoned argument that applies legal reasoning methods to support a legally reasoned conclusion (within the context of legal discourse).

• Context:
  • It can (typically) involve Legal Premises based on legal texts, case law, and statutory interpretation leading to a legal conclusion.
  • It can (often) utilize Legal Evidence such as witness testimony, documents, and expert opinions to substantiate legal claims.
  • It can (often) be found in various forms of Legal Discourse, including courtroom arguments, legal briefs, and judicial opinions.
  • It can (often) be subject to critical evaluation by legal professionals to determine its validity and soundness.
  • It can (often) be influenced by a Jurisdictional Context (and the specific legal standards applicable in that legal jurisdiction).
  • It can (often) be produced by Legal Reasoning Act (of a legal reasoning task).
  • It can range from being a Formal Legal Argument to being an Informal Legal Argument.
  • It can range from being a Valid Legal Argument to being an Invalid Legal Argument.
  • It can range from being a Deductive Legal Argument to being an Inductive Legal Argument to being an Analogical Legal Argument.
  • It can range from being a Persuasive Legal Argument to being an Unpersuaive Legal Argument, depending on ...
  • It can be instantiated in a Legal Reasoning Act.
  • ...
• Example(s):
  • Legal Deductive Argument:
    • "If the statute defines theft as taking property without consent, and the defendant took the property without consent, then the defendant committed theft."
  • Legal Inductive Argument:
    • "In previous cases with similar facts, courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is likely that the court will rule in favor of the plaintiff in this case."
  • Legal Analogical Argument:
    • "The case of Smith v. Jones is similar to the current case because both involve breach of contract under similar circumstances. Therefore, the ruling in Smith v. Jones should apply here."
  • Case-based Legal Reasoned Argument:
    • "According to the precedent set in Brown v. Board of Education, segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. Therefore, the current policy of segregating students by race is unconstitutional."
  • Constitutional Legal Reasoned Argument:
    • "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Therefore, the law that restricts speech based on content is likely unconstitutional."
  • Legal Reasoning by Analogy:
    • "In the case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's right to privacy under the Due Process Clause extends to her decision to have an abortion. Similarly, in this case, the plaintiff's right to privacy should extend to their decision to refuse medical treatment."
  • Legal Argument from Statutory Text:
    • "The plain language of the statute clearly states that the defendant's actions are prohibited. Therefore, the defendant should be found guilty of violating the statute."
  • Legal Argument from Legislative Intent:
    • "The legislative history shows that the purpose of this law was to prevent exactly the kind of harm that occurred in this case. Therefore, the defendant's actions should be considered a violation of the law."
  • Legal Argument from Precedent:
    • "In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney before interrogation. In this case, the police failed to provide the required Miranda warnings, so the defendant's confession should be excluded from evidence."
  • Legal Argument from Constitutional Principles:
    • "The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination based on race. The company's hiring practices, which systematically excluded minority applicants, violate this constitutional principle and are therefore unlawful."
  • Legal Argument from Public Policy:
    • "Allowing the defendant's conduct would undermine the fundamental public policy goals of ensuring fair competition and protecting consumers from deceptive practices. Therefore, the defendant's actions should be deemed unlawful."
  • Legal Argument from Equity:
    • "Although the contract does not explicitly cover this situation, principles of equity and fairness dictate that the defendant should be held accountable for their actions that caused significant harm to the plaintiff."
  • Legal Argument from International Law:
    • "The Geneva Conventions clearly prohibit the mistreatment of prisoners of war. The defendant's actions towards the captured enemy soldiers are in direct violation of these international legal obligations."
  • Legal Argument from Custom and Usage:
    • "In this industry, it is a well-established custom and usage that suppliers provide a 30-day warranty for their products. The defendant's failure to honor this customary practice constitutes a breach of the implied warranty."
  • Legal Argument from Necessity:
    • "The defendant's actions, although typically unlawful, were necessary to prevent a greater harm from occurring. Under the doctrine of necessity, the defendant should be excused from liability in this exceptional circumstance."
  • Legal Argument from Contract Interpretation:
    • "The plain language of Section 5.2 of the contract clearly states that the supplier must deliver the goods by June 1st. The supplier's failure to meet this deadline constitutes a breach of the contract."
  • Legal Argument from Implied Terms:
    • "Although not explicitly stated in the contract, industry custom and the parties' course of dealing imply that the contractor would use materials of the highest quality. The contractor's use of substandard materials breaches this implied term."
  • Legal Argument from Contra Proferentem:
    • "The ambiguous language in Clause 7.4 of the contract should be construed against the drafter, in this case, the company. Therefore, the interpretation most favorable to the employee should be adopted."
  • Legal Argument from Parol Evidence:
    • "While the written contract appears to be silent on the issue of delivery method, the email correspondence between the parties prior to signing the contract clearly indicates an agreement for the goods to be shipped by air. This parol evidence should be considered in interpreting the contract."
  • Legal Argument from Good Faith and Fair Dealing:
    • "Even though the contract grants the company broad discretion in terminating the agreement, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires that this discretion be exercised in a reasonable manner. The company's abrupt termination without any justification violates this covenant."
  • ...
• Counter-Example(s):
  • a Medical Domain-Specific Reasoned Argument, ...
  • a General Domain-Specific Reasoned Argument, which does not specifically apply legal principles or reasoning.
• See: Domain-Specific Reasoned Argument, Legal Reasoning Task, General Reasoned Argument, Legal Reasoning, Deductive Argument, Inductive Argument, Analogical Argument, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Critical Thinking, Argumentation Theory, Judicial Opinion, Legal Brief, Courtroom Argument.

---

---

---