PerceptionAre the circumstances such that having a percept P is not a reliable indicator of P?MemoryIs P originally based on beliefs of which one is false?Is P not originally believed for other reasons?Does the agent who recalls P express doubt about P?Statistical SyllogismIs it the case that, 'c is also an H', and 'things that are also H are not usually G'?InductionTemporal persistenceIs not-P true at some T3 between T1 and T2?General KnowledgeWitness TestimonyIs witness W truthful?Statutory rule applicationIs the rule valid?Is the rule applicable to the case at hand?default rule application Is the rule applicable to the case at hand?is the rule sufficiently backed?counts as ruleIs the rule applicable to the case at hand?The court's decision
Argument A17:
witness V speaks of ``to make use of'',
witness G of ``use'' and
witness S of ``to give in use'',
{\it so\/},
(33) the tent was given in use; furthermore,
witness V speaks of ``free'' and
Nieborg's gratitude,
witness G and S both declare that Nieborg had expressed to them his
gratitude towards V since he and his wife could now go on
holiday,
{\it so\/},
(34) the tent was given for free; furthermore,
witness V speaks of ``for some time'', and
witness S of ``during the summer of 1974'',
{\it so\/},
(35) the tent was given in use temporarily,
{\it so\/},
(22) Nieborg obtained the tent on loan from V.
Argument A11:
(36) as an expression of gratitude the work of Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg is excessive,
(37) V accepted the same kind of work as payment by van der Weg just a few months later,
(38) even V in his testimony admits that the work is related to the giving of the tent,
{\it so\/},
(39) the work of Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg was payment for the tent,
{\it so\/},
(40) the tent was not given in use for free.
Argument A12:
(41) this is a ticket for a Rheinfahrt of Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg in 1974,
{\it so\/},
(42) Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg have been on holiday in 1974;
(43) Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg have been on holiday on several other occasions,
{\it so\/},
(44) Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg have been on holiday on several occasions;
V testified that Nieborg had told him he and his wife could not go on holidays,
{\it so\/},
(45) V has testified something that was not true; furthermore,
(46) V has an interest in a win of van der Weg in this case,
(47) the law declares witnesses with lesser interests than V as unfit for being a
witness,
{\it so\/}
(by 45,46,47), (48) V is not sincere.
Argument A13:
(49) G and S do not say much,
(50) they declare that Nieborg had told them he and his wife could not go on holidays,
(51) this is a ticket for a Rheinfahrt of Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg in 1974,
{\it so\/},
(42) Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg have been on holiday in 1974;
(43) Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg have been on holiday on several other occasions;
(44) Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg have been on holiday on several other occasions,
{\it so\/},
(52) G and S have testified something that was not true,
{\it so\/}, (by 49 and 52)
(53) G and S are not sincere.
Argument A14:
(54) G testifies that that he did not know (when helping Nieborg to build the tent) whether Nieborg had obtained it on loan,
{\it so\/},
(55) G was not in the position to know about (33).
Argument A15:
V says that he had become very angry when Nieborg had told him that he and is wife had now done enough work to pay for the tent, since van der Velde had never meant to sell the tent;
(56) the true reason for V's anger was his dissatisfation with Nieborg's work,
{\it so\/},
(57) V is not sincere.
Argument A 16:
The work of Mr.\ and Mrs.\ Nieborg was no payment
since
it was done out of gratitude,
as proven by the following witness testimonies:
V's testimony, who says (V3) that Nieborg expressed his gratitude, and (V4) that he
offered to do the work after accepting the tent, and (V5) that he
would also have offered the tent without Nieborg's counterservice, and
(V7) by his anger after Nieborg had told him they had done enough to
pay the tent;
by G and S, who both declare that Nieborg had expressed to them his gratitude towards V.
Argument A18:
(58) witnesses more often have an interest in the outcome of a case, and
(59) the law does not declare V inadmissible as a witness
{\it so\/},
(60) A12 is inconclusive.
Argument A19:
(61) V's statements are supported by G and S,
(62) Nieborg has abstained from calling counterwitnesses,
{\it so\/},
(63) van der Velde is sincere.
Argument A19 (repeated):
(61) V's statements are supported by G and S,
(62) Nieborg has abstained from calling counterwitnesses,
{\it so\/},
(63) van der Velde is sincere.
Argument A21:
(64) witness V does not speak of ``bruikleen'',
(65) witness G does not speak of ``bruikleen'',
(66) witness S does not speak of ``bruikleen'';
{\it so\/},
(67) the tent was not given in use.
Argument A 22:
(68) V is a pub owner,
(69) G is a cattle trader,
(70) S is a plasterer
{\it So\/}
(71) the witnesses are legal laymen,
{\it so\/},
(72) A18 is inconclusive.
null2007-11-28(22) Nieborg obtained the tent on loan from V.
(33) the tent was given in use(67) the tent was not given in use(72) A18 is inconclusive.(71) the witnesses are legal laymen,
(68) V is a pub owner(69) G is a cattle trader(70) S is a plasterer(65) witness G does not speak of ``bruikleen''(66) witness S does not speak of ``bruikleen''(64) witness V does not speak of ``bruikleen''witness G of ``use''(55) G was not in the position to know about (33)(54) G testifies that that he did not know (when helping Nieborg to build the tent) whether Nieborg had obtained it on loanwitness S of ``to give in use''witness V speaks of ``to make use of''(48) V is not sincere(60) A12 is inconclusive(58) witnesses more often have an interest in the outcome of a case(59) the law does not declare V inadmissible as a witness
(61) V's statements are supported by G and S(62) Nieborg has abstained from calling counterwitnesses(46) V has an interest in a win of van der Weg in this case(47) the law declares witnesses with lesser interests than V as unfit for being a
witnessV says that he had become very angry when Nieborg had told him that he and is wife had now done enough work to pay for the tent, since van der Velde had never meant to sell the tent;
(56) the true reason for V's anger was his dissatisfation with Nieborg's work(45) V has testified something that was not true(44) Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg have been on holiday on several occasions(42) Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg have been on holiday in 1974(41) this is a ticket for a Rheinfahrt of Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg in 1974(43) Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg have been on holiday on several other occasionsV testified that Nieborg had told him he and his wife could not go on holidays(34) the tent was given for free(40) the tent was not given in use for free.
(39) the work of Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg was payment for the tentThe work of Mr.\ and Mrs.\ Nieborg was no paymentit was done out of gratitude,
as proven by the following witness testimoniesV's testimony, who says (V3) that Nieborg expressed his gratitude, and (V4) that he
offered to do the work after accepting the tent, and (V5) that he
would also have offered the tent without Nieborg's counterservice, and
(V7) by his anger after Nieborg had told him they had done enough to
pay the tentby G and S, who both declare that Nieborg had expressed to them his gratitude towards V.(37) V accepted the same kind of work as payment by van der Weg just a few months later(38) even V in his testimony admits that the work is related to the giving of the tent(36) as an expression of gratitude the work of Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg is excessivewitness G and S both declare that Nieborg had expressed to them his
gratitude towards V since he and his wife could now go on
holiday(53) G and S are not sincere(52) G and S have testified something that was not true(50) they declare that Nieborg had told them he and his wife could not go on holidays,
(51) this is a ticket for a Rheinfahrt of Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg in 1974(44) Mr. and Mrs. Nieborg have been on holiday on several other occasionswitness V speaks of ``free'' and
Nieborg's gratitude(35) the tent was given in use temporarilywitness V speaks of ``for some time''witness S of ``during the summer of 1974''