![]() A human being would assist better than the machine. ![]() As an example, suppose a traveler sees a train already approaching and tries desperately to buy an appropriate ticket from the ticket machine. A human operator can offer flexibility, and this cannot be offered by a machine. However, in the actual performance of an e-procedure there may be a big difference between communicating with a human operator and communicating with a machine. All parties are equal in e-procedures, and in this respect e-procedures seem to be fair. The complexity of the law is not reduced by e-proceedings, but, as in the Middle Ages, continues to require intermediaries who now must be expert in information technology. This is an opportunity for intermediaries, allowing them to continue to position themselves professionally. A party who is not skillful in law may be overwhelmed by this. However, the content of the conclusion depends to a large extent on the starting material that was completed in the parties’ front offices. Back-office programs for e-procedures are very quick and accurate at drawing legal conclusions from input data. To make entries, the parties have to use their knowledge of the legal terms that are defined by the sources of law in a complicated way. ![]() Thus, the performance of subsumption is delegated to the parties. The entries in these fields, however, are not commonly known but require knowledge of jargon. Thus, there are a number of regulatory steps between the parties’ assertions and the subsumption.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |