Breach of contract claims, beyond the most simple scenarios, often involve difficult normative questions. It's unlikely a simple dispute capable of being resolv

Breach of contract claims, beyond the most simple scenarios, often involve difficult normative questions. It's unlikely a simple dispute capable of being resolved by a computer would wind up going to trial. It would be settled or be the subject of summary judgment. Sure, you might have word state -> boolean in a simple scenario. But what if the party alleges the contract, or a term, is void or unenforceable because of the existence of a vitiating factor? What if there are two competing interpretations of a term which depend upon considerations such as the purpose of the agreement? It would be a very difficult task asking someone to agree to a contract which requires no value judgements. Even more so in the Nordic countries where such agreements are governed through a lens of 'good faith'. We then wind up making value judgements, weighing the benefits of holding parties to a bargain capable of being determined objectively, on the one hand, and the elusive and complex notion of 'fairness' on the other. We are then well and truly outside the boundaries of the capabilities of contemporary thinking machines. Taxation is an area of back end law where lawyers should be worried about automation.