Papers › Automated Consistency Analysis for Legal Contracts

Automated Consistency Analysis for Legal Contracts

25 Apr 2025arXiv:2504.18422links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Alan Khoja, Martin Kölbl, Stefan Leue, Rüdiger Wilhelmi

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Business contracts, particularly sale and purchase agreements, often contain a large number of clauses and are correspondingly long and complex. In practice, it is therefore a great challenge to keep track of their legal context and to identify and avoid inconsistencies in such contracts. Against this background, we describe a method and tool called ContractCheck which allows for the consistency analysis of legal contracts, in particular Share Purchase Agreements (SPAs). In order to identify the concepts that are relevant for an analysis we define an ontology for SPAs. The analysis is, then, based on an encoding of the preconditions for the execution of the clauses of an SPA, as well as on a set of proposed consistency constraints formalized using decidable fragments of First-Order Logic (FOL). Based on the ontology for SPAs, textual SPAs are first encoded in a structured natural language format that we refer to as ``blocks''. ContractCheck interprets these blocks and constraints and translates them into assertions formulated in FOL. It then invokes a Satisfiability Modulo Theory (SMT) solver in order to check the executability of a considered contract, either by providing a satisfying model, or by proving the existence of conflicting clauses that prevent the contract from being executed. We illustrate the application of ContractCheck to concrete SPAs, including one example of an SPA of realistic size and complexity, and conclude by suggesting directions for future research.

PaperPDFCode

Code

sen-uni-kn/contractcheck officialmentioned in paper report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections