Legal Inferencing Project

FINDER Consultation Edit this Page -- Back to the Top Run this page's rulebase in WYSH -- Check Fact Translations -- Check Fact Cross-References

This is a demonstration of rule-based inferencing using the ysh inferencing engine and the wysh interface, written for the Computerisation of Law course at the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law. This material must not be relied upon or used for the purposes of legal advice.

This is the FINDER Consultation

GOAL RULE the finder wins PROVIDES
DETERMINE the finder wins

RULE trespasser rule PROVIDES
IF the finder is a trespasser THEN the finder does not win

EXAMPLE Armory PROVIDES
    the finder wins ONLY IF
        the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was not attached AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was not a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was not hidden AND
        there was not an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Bridges PROVIDES
    the finder wins ONLY IF
        the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was not attached AND
        the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was not a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was not hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Elwes PROVIDES
    the finder does not win ONLY IF
        the finder was the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was attached AND
        the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Hannah PROVIDES
    the finder wins ONLY IF
        the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was not attached AND
        the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was not a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Yorkwin PROVIDES
    the finder does not win ONLY IF
        the finder was the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was attached AND
        the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Moffatt PROVIDES
    the finder does not win ONLY IF
        the finder was the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was not attached AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was the owner of the chattel AND
        there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was not a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was not a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Sharman PROVIDES
    the finder does not win ONLY IF
        the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was attached AND
        the non-finder was the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was not a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

EXAMPLE Appleyard PROVIDES
    the finder does not win ONLY IF
        the finder was not the occupier of the premises AND
        the chattel was attached AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the real estate AND
        the non-finder was not the owner of the chattel AND
        there was not a bailment of the chattel AND
        there was not a term in a lease which mentioned  found items AND
        there was a master-servant relationship between the parties AND
        the chattel was hidden AND
        there was an attempt to find the true owner of the chattel AND
        there was not prior knowledge of the existence of the chattel

Edit this Page -- Search for References to this Page -- Display this Page and all its References Run this page's rulebase in WYSH -- Check Fact Translations -- Check Fact Cross-References Search for text in all pages: