judgement structure

data/uae_logs.txt

@@ -1,229 +0,0 @@
-name of parties: Plaintiff: Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich; Defendant: Johnson James  
-date of claim filing: Not provided  
-amount of claim: 100,000 AED  
-Claim validity: True  
-Circumstance:   
-- Principal Circumstance: Non-payment of the second installment of 100,000 AED by the Defendant as per the vehicle purchase agreement.  
-- Derivative Circumstance: The agreement of payment in two installments and the fulfillment of the first installment payment by the Defendant.  
-- Indirectly Derivative Circumstance: The delivery of the vehicle to the Defendant, indicating the commencement of the agreement's terms.  
-- Ancillary Circumstance: The sending of written notices by the Plaintiff to the Defendant regarding the non-payment.  
-
-Analysis of circumstances:
-- Categories of circumstances are referred to by the Claimant in the claim statement as confirmed by evidence: The claimant refers to the principal circumstance of non-payment, supported by derivative circumstances such as the agreement details and the fulfillment of the first installment, indirectly derivative circumstances through the delivery of the vehicle, and ancillary circumstances through the attempt to notify the Defendant of the non-payment.  
-- Most important circumstance: The non-payment of the second installment of 100,000 AED by the Defendant.  
-
-Evidence indicated in the claim and other documents: 
-- Evidence 1: Copy of the vehicle purchase agreement dated January 1, 2024, related fact(s): Agreement on the purchase price of 250,000 AED with payment in two installments.
-- Evidence 2: Copy of the vehicle delivery certificate, related fact(s): Confirmation of the vehicle's delivery to the Defendant on January 1, 2024.
-- Evidence 3: Copy of the receipt for the first installment payment of 150,000 AED, related fact(s): Proof of the Defendant's payment of the first installment within the agreed timeframe.
-- Evidence 4: Written notices sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on March 1, 2024, March 15, 2024, and April 1, 2024, related fact(s): Attempts by the Plaintiff to notify the Defendant of the outstanding payment.Response validity: Justified  
-Claim needs rechecking: False  
-Prima Facie refuted: True  
-Circumstance:   
-- Principal Circumstance: Non-payment of the second installment of 100,000 AED by the Defendant.  
-- Derivative Circumstance: The agreement of payment in two installments and the fulfillment of the first installment payment by the Defendant.  
-- Indirectly Derivative Circumstance: The delivery of the vehicle to the Defendant, indicating the commencement of the agreement's terms.  
-- Ancillary Circumstance: The sending of written notices by the Defendant to the Plaintiff regarding the vehicle's defects.  
-
-Analysis of circumstances:
-- Categories of circumstances are referred to by the Defendant in the claim statement as confirmed by evidence: The Defendant refers to the principal circumstance of non-payment, supported by derivative circumstances such as the agreement details and the fulfillment of the first installment, indirectly derivative circumstances through the delivery of the vehicle, and ancillary circumstances through the attempt to notify the Plaintiff of the vehicle's defects.
-- Most important circumstance: The non-payment of the second installment of 100,000 AED by the Defendant due to the vehicle's defects.
-
-Evidence indicated in the response and other documents: 
-- Evidence 1 (Claimant): Copy of the vehicle purchase agreement dated January 1, 2024, related fact(s): Agreement on the purchase price of 250,000 AED with payment in two installments vs Evidence 1 (Defendant) Copies of the written notices dated January 5, 2024, January 20, 2024, and February 10, 2024, related fact(s): Notification of vehicle defects.
-- Evidence 2 (Claimant): Copy of the vehicle delivery certificate, related fact(s): Confirmation of the vehicle's delivery to the Defendant on January 1, 2024 vs Evidence 2 (Defendant) Expert report confirming the defects in the Vehicle, related fact(s): Confirmation of vehicle defects rendering it unfit for its intended use.
-- Evidence 3 (Claimant): Copy of the receipt for the first installment payment of 150,000 AED, related fact(s): Proof of the Defendant's payment of the first installment within the agreed timeframe vs Evidence 3 (Defendant) Evidence of alternative transportation costs incurred by the Defendant, related fact(s): Costs incurred due to the vehicle's defects.
-- Evidence 4 (Claimant): Written notices sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on March 1, 2024, March 15, 2024, and April 1, 2024, related fact(s): Attempts by the Plaintiff to notify the Defendant of the outstanding payment vs Evidence 4 (Defendant) Not directly provided, but implied through the Defendant's actions to notify the Plaintiff of the defects and seek remedy.
-Claimant clarification to defendant's response: 
-Response given: False
-Defendant's response to claimant's clarifications: 
-Response given: False
-Defendant provided new evidence: False
-**Clarifications given**:
-- No additional clarifications or objections were provided by the Defendant in response to the Claimant's clarifications.-Evidence 1 (Claimant): Copy of the vehicle purchase agreement dated January 1, 2024, strength: Medium, related fact(s): Agreement on the purchase price of 250,000 AED with payment in two installments vs Evidence 1 (Defendant): Copies of the written notices dated January 5, 2024, January 20, 2024, and February 10, 2024, strength: Weak, related fact(s): Notification of vehicle defects. The vehicle purchase agreement signed by both parties provides a higher level of credibility compared to the unilateral written notices from the Defendant to the Claimant.
-
--Evidence 2 (Claimant): Copy of the vehicle delivery certificate, strength: Medium, related fact(s): Confirmation of the vehicle's delivery to the Defendant on January 1, 2024 vs Evidence 2 (Defendant): Expert report confirming the defects in the Vehicle, strength: Strong, related fact(s): Confirmation of vehicle defects rendering it unfit for its intended use. The vehicle delivery certificate, presumably signed by both parties, indicates mutual acknowledgment of the delivery, while the expert report is an independent assessment of the vehicle's condition.
-
--Evidence 3 (Claimant): Copy of the receipt for the first installment payment of 150,000 AED, strength: Medium, related fact(s): Proof of the Defendant's payment of the first installment within the agreed timeframe vs Evidence 3 (Defendant): Evidence of alternative transportation costs incurred by the Defendant, strength: Weak, related fact(s): Costs incurred due to the vehicle's defects. The receipt for the installment payment is a mutual acknowledgment of the payment made, whereas the documentation for alternative transportation costs, unless accompanied by third-party verification, is less credible.
-
--Evidence 4 (Claimant): Written notices sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on March 1, 2024, March 15, 2024, and April 1, 2024, strength: Weak, related fact(s): Attempts by the Plaintiff to notify the Defendant of the outstanding payment vs Evidence 4 (Defendant): Not directly provided, but implied through the Defendant's actions to notify the Plaintiff of the defects and seek remedy, strength: Not applicable, related fact(s): Not directly comparable. The written notices from the Claimant to the Defendant are unilateral communications and thus considered weak evidence. The Defendant's response to these notices or actions taken in response are not directly provided as evidence for comparison.Evidence Link 1
-
-Plaintiff's Evidence:
-Description: Copy of the vehicle purchase agreement dated January 1, 2024.
-Direct Fact: The agreement for the purchase of a BMW X5, 2022 model, for 250,000 AED with payment in two installments.
-Defendant's Evidence:
-Description: Copies of the written notices dated January 5, 2024, January 20, 2024, and February 10, 2024.
-Direct Fact: Notification of vehicle defects shortly after the purchase.
-
-Selection: Synthesized Fact
-Detailed Fact Description: The vehicle purchase agreement dated January 1, 2024, establishes the sale of a BMW X5, 2022 model, for 250,000 AED with payment in two installments, and the Defendant's written notices indicate the discovery of defects in the vehicle shortly after its purchase.
-Contradictory Fact: There is no direct contradiction as the agreement confirms the sale and the notices indicate subsequent actions taken due to discovered defects.
-
-Evidence Link 2
-
-Plaintiff's Evidence:
-Description: Copy of the vehicle delivery certificate.
-Direct Fact: Confirmation of the vehicle's delivery to the Defendant on January 1, 2024.
-Defendant's Evidence:
-Description: Expert report confirming the defects in the Vehicle.
-Direct Fact: Confirmation of vehicle defects rendering it unfit for its intended use.
-
-Selection: Defendant's Evidence
-Detailed Fact Description: An expert report confirms the defects in the BMW X5, 2022 model, rendering it unfit for its intended use, which challenges the fulfillment of the contract's terms regarding the condition of the vehicle at the time of sale.
-Contradictory Fact: The vehicle was delivered, but not in the agreed-upon condition as per the sale agreement, indicating a breach of the implied warranty of the vehicle's condition.
-
-Evidence Link 3
-
-Plaintiff's Evidence:
-Description: Copy of the receipt for the first installment payment of 150,000 AED.
-Direct Fact: Proof of the Defendant's payment of the first installment within the agreed timeframe.
-Defendant's Evidence:
-Description: Evidence of alternative transportation costs incurred by the Defendant.
-Direct Fact: Costs incurred due to the vehicle's defects.
-
-Selection: Plaintiff's Evidence
-Detailed Fact Description: The receipt for the first installment payment of 150,000 AED confirms that the Defendant made the initial payment as per the agreement terms.
-Contradictory Fact: While the Defendant incurred additional costs due to the vehicle's defects, this does not negate the fact that the initial payment was made according to the contract terms.
-
-Evidence Link 4
-
-Plaintiff's Evidence:
-Description: Written notices sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on March 1, 2024, March 15, 2024, and April 1, 2024.
-Direct Fact: Attempts by the Plaintiff to notify the Defendant of the outstanding payment.
-Defendant's Evidence:
-Description: Not directly provided, but implied through the Defendant's actions to notify the Plaintiff of the defects and seek remedy.
-Direct Fact: The Defendant's proactive measures to address the vehicle's defects.
-
-Selection: Synthesized Fact
-Detailed Fact Description: The Plaintiff's written notices to the Defendant regarding the outstanding payment and the Defendant's notifications to the Plaintiff about the vehicle's defects indicate ongoing communication between the parties regarding the vehicle's condition and payment issues.
-Contradictory Fact: The existence of communication does not inherently contradict; rather, it shows the parties' attempts to resolve arising issues post-agreement.List of "Selection" Facts:
-
-1. The vehicle purchase agreement dated January 1, 2024, establishes the sale of a BMW X5, 2022 model, for 250,000 AED with payment in two installments.
-2. The Defendant's written notices indicate the discovery of defects in the vehicle shortly after its purchase.
-3. An expert report confirms the defects in the BMW X5, 2022 model, rendering it unfit for its intended use.
-4. The receipt for the first installment payment of 150,000 AED confirms that the Defendant made the initial payment as per the agreement terms.
-5. The Plaintiff's written notices to the Defendant regarding the outstanding payment and the Defendant's notifications to the Plaintiff about the vehicle's defects indicate ongoing communication between the parties regarding the vehicle's condition and payment issues.
-
-Additional Compatible Facts:
-
-1. The agreement on the purchase price of 250,000 AED with payment in two installments does not contradict the discovery of defects post-purchase, as the agreement establishes the terms of sale, not the condition of the vehicle post-sale.
-2. The confirmation of the vehicle's delivery to the Defendant on January 1, 2024, supports the fact that the Defendant had possession of the vehicle to discover the defects.
-3. The attempts by the Plaintiff to notify the Defendant of the outstanding payment through written notices do not contradict the Defendant's actions to notify the Plaintiff of the vehicle's defects, as both sets of communications are attempts to resolve different aspects of the dispute.
-
-Pure Chronology of Facts - Case Fabula:
-
-Event: The signing of the vehicle purchase agreement for a BMW X5, 2022 model.
-Date: January 1, 2024.
-Participants: Plaintiff (Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich) and Defendant (Johnson James).
-Location: Not specified.
-
-Event: Delivery of the BMW X5, 2022 model, to the Defendant.
-Date: January 1, 2024.
-Participants: Plaintiff (Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich) and Defendant (Johnson James).
-Location: Not specified.
-
-Event: Defendant's payment of the first installment of 150,000 AED.
-Date: Within the agreed timeframe from January 1, 2024.
-Participants: Defendant (Johnson James).
-Location: Not specified.
-
-Event: Discovery of defects in the BMW X5, 2022 model, by the Defendant.
-Date: Shortly after January 1, 2024.
-Participants: Defendant (Johnson James).
-Location: Not specified.
-
-Event: Defendant's notifications to the Plaintiff about the vehicle's defects.
-Dates: January 5, 2024, January 20, 2024, and February 10, 2024.
-Participants: Defendant (Johnson James).
-Location: Not specified.
-
-Event: Plaintiff's written notices to the Defendant regarding the outstanding payment.
-Dates: March 1, 2024, March 15, 2024, and April 1, 2024.
-Participants: Plaintiff (Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich).
-Location: Not specified.
-
-This chronology outlines the sequence of events from the inception of the legal relationship (the signing of the purchase agreement) to the filing of the lawsuit, highlighting the discovery of defects, payments made, and communications between the parties regarding the dispute.Given the detailed information provided, let's proceed with the judgment on the matter between Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich (Plaintiff) and Johnson James (Defendant) regarding the non-payment of the second installment of 100,000 AED for the vehicle purchase agreement.
-
-### Step 1: Determining the Primary Goal of the Contract or Legal Relationship
-
-#### 1.1 Analyzing the Contract Text (Legal Relationship)
-
-The primary goal of the contract was the sale and purchase of a BMW X5, 2022 model, for 250,000 AED, with payment to be made in two installments. The key object of the contract is the vehicle itself.
-
-#### 1.2 Identifying Key Terms
-
-- The total purchase price of 250,000 AED.
-- Payment in two installments: the first installment of 150,000 AED (already paid), and the second installment of 100,000 AED (in dispute).
-- Delivery of the vehicle to the Defendant upon the first payment.
-
-#### 1.3 Identifying Non-Essential Terms
-
-Terms related to the delivery date, warranty conditions, or any service agreements could be considered auxiliary, as they supplement but do not fundamentally alter the contract's purpose.
-
-#### 1.4 Checking Contract Terms for Contradictions
-
-There are no apparent contradictions within the contract terms; however, the dispute arises from the condition of the vehicle post-delivery, which is not explicitly covered by the initial agreement terms.
-
-### Step 2: Analyzing Legal Norms and Behavioral Models
-
-#### 2.4.1 Determining the Type of Contract
-
-This is a sale and purchase agreement for a vehicle, which involves specific performance obligations (payment and delivery) and implied warranties regarding the condition of the goods sold.
-
-#### 2.4.4 Highlighting Key Aspects
-
-- **Article 386** and **Article 387** are particularly relevant, suggesting that the Defendant's non-payment could be justified if the non-performance (vehicle defects) was not attributable to him.
-- The importance of written notices as per **Article 387** and **Article 388**.
-
-### Step 3: Forming the Behavior Model of the Parties
-
-#### 3.1 Establishing the Overall Utility of the Contract
-
-The utility for the Plaintiff is receiving the full payment of 250,000 AED for the vehicle. For the Defendant, it is acquiring a vehicle that is fit for its intended use.
-
-#### 3.2 Determining the Most Efficient Actions
-
-The most efficient action would have been for the Defendant to notify the Plaintiff of the defects immediately upon discovery and for the Plaintiff to address these defects or renegotiate the terms based on the vehicle's condition.
-
-#### 3.3 Forming the Constitution of the Parties' Behavior
-
-- The Plaintiff should have ensured the vehicle was in the agreed condition at the time of sale.
-- The Defendant, upon discovering defects, did notify the Plaintiff, which aligns with the expected behavior model.
-
-### Step 4: Comparing Actual Actions and Adjusting the Behavior Model
-
-#### 4.1 Comparison
-
-The Defendant's refusal to pay the second installment aligns with the behavior model when considering the vehicle's defects. The Plaintiff's demand for payment without addressing the defects does not align with the expected behavior of remedying the situation or renegotiating the terms.
-
-#### 4.2 Identifying Deviations
-
-The primary deviation is the Plaintiff's insistence on payment without addressing the reported defects.
-
-#### 4.3 Establishing Rights and Behavior Strategies
-
-- The Plaintiff should address the defects as reported by the Defendant or renegotiate the payment terms based on the vehicle's condition.
-- The Defendant has the right to withhold the second installment until the defects are remedied or the terms are adjusted to reflect the vehicle's condition.
-
-### Conclusion
-
-Given the evidence of vehicle defects and the Defendant's timely notification to the Plaintiff, the Defendant's non-payment of the second installment is justified under the circumstances. The Plaintiff is advised to either rectify the defects at their own expense or renegotiate the contract terms to reach an amicable resolution. This approach aligns with the legal norms outlined and ensures the contract's primary goal is met while respecting both parties' rights and obligations.# Judgement
-JudgeAI Court
-[2024-06-09]
-Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich vs. Johnson James
-Case Title: Claim for Recovery of Debt Under a Vehicle Purchase Agreement
-
-### Introduction:
-This case revolves around a dispute between Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich (Plaintiff) and Johnson James (Defendant) concerning the non-payment of the second installment of 100,000 AED for a vehicle purchase agreement. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant has failed to fulfill the payment obligation as per the agreement, substantiating the claim with evidence including the vehicle purchase agreement, vehicle delivery certificate, receipt of the first installment, and written notices sent to the Defendant regarding the outstanding payment. The Defendant counters the claim by asserting that the vehicle delivered was defective, impacting its usability, and thus justifies withholding the second installment. The Defendant supports this objection with evidence such as written notices to the Plaintiff about the vehicle's defects, an expert report confirming these defects, and documentation of incurred costs for alternative transportation.
-
-### Description of the Evidence Analysis Process and Compilation of the Final Case Narrative Based on the Evidence Analysis:
-The evidence was meticulously analyzed to establish the sequence of events leading to the dispute. The vehicle purchase agreement, delivery certificate, and receipt of the first installment payment were confirmed as authentic and directly related to the contractual obligations between the parties. The written notices from both parties were also verified, establishing a timeline of communication regarding the vehicle's condition and payment issues. This analysis led to a comprehensive narrative where the Defendant discovered and reported defects in the vehicle shortly after its delivery, which was followed by the Plaintiff's demands for the second installment payment despite being notified of these defects.
-
-### Detailed Account of Deviations from Ideal Behavior:
-The primary deviation from the ideal behavior model involves the Plaintiff's demand for the second installment without addressing the reported defects in the vehicle. According to the ideal behavior model, upon receiving notification of the defects, the Plaintiff should have either rectified the defects at their own expense or renegotiated the contract terms to reflect the vehicle's condition.
-
-### Analysis of Each Identified Deviation:
-The deviation identified is a violation of the contract's implied warranty of the vehicle's condition. The Defendant's withholding of the second installment is justified under the circumstances, given the vehicle's defects and the Plaintiff's failure to address these issues despite being notified. The Plaintiff could have acted in accordance with Nash equilibrium by either rectifying the defects or renegotiating the payment terms, which would have potentially avoided the dispute. However, the Plaintiff's insistence on full payment without addressing the defects constitutes a deviation from the ideal behavior model and is recognized as a violation.
-
-### Conclusion:
-Given the evidence of the vehicle's defects, the Defendant's timely notification to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff's failure to address these defects, the claim for the recovery of the second installment of 100,000 AED is denied. The Defendant's objection to the claim is justified, and the Plaintiff's demands are not met. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is advised to either rectify the defects at their own expense or renegotiate the contract terms to reach an amicable resolution. No monetary compensation is awarded to the Plaintiff, and the claim requirements are fully denied.

prompts/uae_law_stage_prompts.py

@@ -566,15 +566,46 @@ You are prohibited from making a decision on partial satisfaction of claims if y
 
 
 Output should not have any starting greeting or ending goodbyes.
-Prepare the final full decision according to the following structure.
+Prepare the final full decision according to the following structure. Replace [] with appropriate data. 
 # Judgement
-JudgeAI Court
-[{judgement_date}]
-[Name of Claimant] vs. [Name of Defendant]
-Case Title: [Exact Case Title]
-### Introduction: A brief description of the essence of the case (what the claim is about), a description of the plaintiff's claim (on what basis the plaintiff bases their demand, what evidence they provide to support the claim requirements), and a description of the defendant's position (on what basis the defendant bases their objection to the claim, what evidence they provide).
-### Description of the Evidence Analysis Process and Compilation of the Final Case Narrative Based on the Evidence Analysis: Briefly describe how you analyzed the evidence in stage where the case fable was built: how you came to conclusions about the provenance of certain facts and why you considered other facts, referenced by the parties, as unproven. At the end of this part, there should be a presentation of the complete chronology of the real behavior of the parties (narrative), which was compiled as a result of stage where the case fable was built.
-### Detailed Account of Deviations from Ideal Behavior: Detailed exposition of cases where the real behavior of the parties deviates from the ideal, all these deviations are established in this stage.
-### Analysis of Each Identified Deviation: Describe why each deviation is or is not a violation, and how it affects the satisfaction of the requirements (i.e., you should describe all the analytical work you did in this stage). When determining a deviation as a violation, you must indicate how the violating party could have behaved if they had acted in accordance with Nash equilibrium; in other words, you must specify that the violating party could have behaved in a certain way and then there would have been no violation, but the party ultimately behaved differently, therefore this deviation is recognized as a violation.
-### Conclusion: The resolutive part of the decision should be clearly presented, indicating whether the claim requirements are satisfied, to what extent the claim requirements are met (fully or partially), specifying the exact amount of satisfied claim requirements and/or any other legal demands requested by the plaintiff (such as an injunction, recognition of rights, etc.), or indicating a denial of the claim requirements. There should be no unresolved claims of the claimant in the judgment. It cannot be argued that you cannot decide from the limitations of the analysis, nor can it be argued that the claimant's claim requires deeper analysis.
+
+## JudgeAI Court
+## [{judgement_date}]
+## [Plaintiff] vs. [Defendant]
+## [Case Title]: 
+
+## Introduction
+The JudgeAI Court reviewed the case brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant regarding a claim for [a few words telling what the claim is for].
+
+## Case Circumstances
+The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant regarding the [a few words telling what the claim is for], citing the following circumstances: [brief summary of the circumstances presented by the Plaintiff].
+The Defendant, during the court proceedings, objected to the claims, arguing [main arguments and objections of the Defendant].
+
+## Established Facts
+Based on the presented evidence, heard explanations from the parties, and examined case materials, the court established the following: [Description of the factual circumstances established by the court].
+
+## Legal Analysis
+The court, having studied the case materials, heard the parties, and examined the presented evidence, reached the following conclusions:
+    1. **Comparison of Actual Actions with Ideal Behavior Model:**
+        ◦ [Description of identified deviations from the ideal behavior model].
+    2. **Legal Compliance Check of Deviations:**
+        ◦ [Analysis of deviations in terms of their compliance with legal norms, with references to specific articles of laws and regulations].
+        Applicable Legal Provisions:
+            • According to Article [number] of the Civil Code of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), [quote or summary of the article].
+            • In accordance with Article [number] of [name of another law or regulation applicable in the UAE], [quote or summary of the article].
+    3. Assessment of Damage from Deviations:
+        ◦ [Analysis of the possibility of assessing the damage and its amount, or the impact of deviations on the purpose of the contract].
+
+## Ruling
+Based on the above and guided by Articles [numbers] of the UAE Civil Code, Articles [numbers] of other applicable laws or regulations, the court
+
+## DECIDES:
+    4. ### To [satisfy/partially satisfy/deny] the claims of the Plaintiff.
+    5. To recover from the Defendant in favor of the Plaintiff the amount of [specify amount], representing compensation for damages from violations.
+    6. To [deny/satisfy/partially satisfy] the remaining claims.
+    7. [Other rulings related to court costs, fines, etc.]
+
+**Note:** This judgement is not legally binding or enforceable and is part of an experimental process conducted by JudgeAI Court.
+
+
 """

uae_law.py

@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ class Uae_law():
         pre stage 6 - getting relevant codified laws
         '''
         response = azure_search.azure_search(self.query)
-        self.legal_norms = "Legal Norms: \n" + response
+        self.legal_norms = "\nLegal Norms: \n" + response
 
         return response