Automated Consistency Analysis for Legal Contracts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18422v1
• Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 15:29:36 GMT
• Title: Automated Consistency Analysis for Legal Contracts
• Authors: Alan Khoja, Martin Kölbl, Stefan Leue, Rüdiger Wilhelmi,
• Abstract summary: We describe a method and tool called ContractCheck which allows for the consistency analysis of legal contracts.<n>The analysis is based on an encoding of the preconditions for the execution of the clauses of an SPA.<n>It then invokes a Satisfiability Modulo Theory solver in order to check the executability of a considered contract.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Business contracts, particularly sale and purchase agreements, often contain a large number of clauses and are correspondingly long and complex. In practice, it is therefore a great challenge to keep track of their legal context and to identify and avoid inconsistencies in such contracts. Against this background, we describe a method and tool called ContractCheck which allows for the consistency analysis of legal contracts, in particular Share Purchase Agreements (SPAs). In order to identify the concepts that are relevant for an analysis we define an ontology for SPAs. The analysis is, then, based on an encoding of the preconditions for the execution of the clauses of an SPA, as well as on a set of proposed consistency constraints formalized using decidable fragments of First-Order Logic (FOL). Based on the ontology for SPAs, textual SPAs are first encoded in a structured natural language format that we refer to as ``blocks''. ContractCheck interprets these blocks and constraints and translates them into assertions formulated in FOL. It then invokes a Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solver in order to check the executability of a considered contract, either by providing a satisfying model, or by proving the existence of conflicting clauses that prevent the contract from being executed. We illustrate the application of ContractCheck to concrete SPAs, including one example of an SPA of realistic size and complexity, and conclude by suggesting directions for future research.

Related papers

• A Law Reasoning Benchmark for LLM with Tree-Organized Structures including Factum Probandum, Evidence and Experiences [76.73731245899454]
  We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience.<n>Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision.<n>This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the Intelligent Court''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T10:26:54Z)
• Few-shot Policy (de)composition in Conversational Question Answering [54.259440408606515]
  We propose a neuro-symbolic framework to detect policy compliance using large language models (LLMs) in a few-shot setting. We show that our approach soundly reasons about policy compliance conversations by extracting sub-questions to be answered, assigning truth values from contextual information, and explicitly producing a set of logic statements from the given policies. We apply this approach to the popular PCD and conversational machine reading benchmark, ShARC, and show competitive performance with no task-specific finetuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T08:40:15Z)
• FLARE: Faithful Logic-Aided Reasoning and Exploration [50.9814063216852]
  We introduce a novel approach for traversing the problem space using task decompositions.<n>We use the Large Language Models to plan a solution, soft-formalise the query into facts and predicates using a logic programming code.<n>Our method allows us to compute the faithfulness of the reasoning process w.r.t. the generated code and analyse the steps of the multi-hop search without relying on external solvers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T19:39:11Z)
• SparseCL: Sparse Contrastive Learning for Contradiction Retrieval [87.02936971689817]
  Contradiction retrieval refers to identifying and extracting documents that explicitly disagree with or refute the content of a query. Existing methods such as similarity search and crossencoder models exhibit significant limitations. We introduce SparseCL that leverages specially trained sentence embeddings designed to preserve subtle, contradictory nuances between sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-15T21:57:03Z)
• LegalPro-BERT: Classification of Legal Provisions by fine-tuning BERT Large Language Model [0.0]
  Contract analysis requires the identification and classification of key provisions and paragraphs within an agreement. LegalPro-BERT is a BERT transformer architecture model that we fine- tune to efficiently handle classification task for legal provisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T19:08:48Z)
• Generating Clarification Questions for Disambiguating Contracts [3.672364005691543]
  We introduce a novel legal NLP task that involves generating clarification questions for contracts. These questions aim to identify contract ambiguities on a document level, thereby assisting non-legal stakeholders. Experiments conducted on contracts sourced from the publicly available CUAD dataset show that ConRAP can detect ambiguities with an F2 score of 0.87.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T19:57:39Z)
• Formal Modeling and Analysis of Legal Contracts using ContractCheck [0.0]
  textitContractCheck allows consistency analysis of legal contracts, in particular Sales Purchase Agreements (SPAs) The analysis relies on an encoding of the premises for the execution of the clauses of an SPA as well as the proposed consistency constraints using decidable fragments of first-order logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-06T22:03:11Z)
• ConReader: Exploring Implicit Relations in Contracts for Contract Clause Extraction [84.0634340572349]
  We study automatic Contract Clause Extraction (CCE) by modeling implicit relations in legal contracts. In this work, we first comprehensively analyze the complexity issues of contracts and distill out three implicit relations commonly found in contracts. We propose a novel framework ConReader to exploit the above three relations for better contract understanding and improving CCE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T02:15:18Z)
• Detecting Logical Relation In Contract Clauses [94.85352502638081]
  We develop an approach to automate the extraction of logical relations between clauses in a contract. The resulting approach should help contract authors detecting potential logical conflicts between clauses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-02T19:26:32Z)
• ContractNLI: A Dataset for Document-level Natural Language Inference for Contracts [39.75232199445175]
  We propose "document-level natural language inference (NLI) for contracts" A system is given a set of hypotheses and a contract, and it is asked to classify whether each hypothesis is "entailed by", "contradicting to" or "not mentioned by" (neutral to) the contract. We release the largest corpus to date consisting of 607 annotated contracts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-05T03:22:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.