Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 6 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 574 Technical Problems
- 275 Off-topic
Application of logic in a legal context - Real life example
I work at a law firm and my current assignment is to draft a protocol to terminate an agreement, and I'm having trouble applying what I've so far learned in logic. I'd love to hear what you guys think about this particular article in the agreement that we're asked to terminate. It's something along the lines of:
This Agreement shall come into force as of the share acquisition of the New Shareholder has been accomplished.
It's not so neatly put but my understanding is that it is a conditional statement, and that it can be translated as 'Share acquisition → Come into effect'.
My first question is do you think this is the correct translation??
The second issue is (let's assume the above logical translation holds here) that the acquisition of shares has NOT taken place in our case. A senior associate told me that the Agreement has not come into effect because of this, which made me think: sufficiency necessity confusion!! We cannot infer '/Share acquisition → /Come into effect' from 'Share acquisition → Come into effect'!!!
BUT I've come to think that he has a point..
All along we learned that given Jedi → Force, it would be fallacious to infer anything from /Jedi since the rule becomes irrelevant when we negate the sufficient condition. Why? Because we simply do not know what would happen outside this world. In the '/Jedi' instance, you could be a force user or not, we simply do not have enough info from just Jedi → Force.
But in this case, we have an entire agreement to figure out what happens when. And in our agreement, there is no other condition or instance that makes the agreement enforceable. No sort of 'This agreement shall enter into force upon signature by both parties' clause, etc.
So, my second question is, since our conditional statement has become irrelevant (since the sufficient condition about share acq. has not been satisfied) and since we have no other condition to trigger the necessary condition, can we conclude that the necessary condition will also not take place (/Come into effect)??
Sorry for the length of this post but I'm looking forward to a discussion 