Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
At common law, in the case of landowners, the extent of their duty of care to those who came on their premises varied depending on whether a person was classified as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. This rule was eventually abolished in some common law jurisdictions. For example, England enacted the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.
Premises are land and buildings together considered as a property. This usage arose from property owners finding the word in their title deeds , where it originally correctly meant "the aforementioned; what this document is about", from Latin prae-missus = "placed before".
An example of this is the use of the rules of inference found within symbolic logic. Aristotle held that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion. [2] Premises are sometimes left unstated, in which case, they are called missing premises, for example: Socrates is mortal because all men are mortal.
Legal syllogism is a legal concept concerning the law and its application, specifically a form of argument based on deductive reasoning and seeking to establish whether a specified act is lawful. [1] A syllogism is a form of logical reasoning that hinges on a question, a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.
Deductive reasoning offers the strongest support: the premises ensure the conclusion, meaning that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if all the premises are true. Such an argument is called a valid argument, for example: all men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal. For valid arguments, it is not important ...
Premise is a claim that is a reason for, or an objection against, some other claim as part of an argument. Premise (from the Latin praemissa [propositio], meaning "placed in front") may also refer to: Premises, land and buildings together considered as a property; Premise (narrative), the situational logic driving the plot in plays
The definition must be sought in case law. The currently applicable test for the status of "occupier" is the degree of occupational control. The more control a person has over certain premises, the more likely that person is to be considered "occupier" for the purposes of the two Occupiers' Liability Acts.
The second premise is an assertion that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is the case. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, must be the case as well. An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens: If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work. Today is Tuesday.