The "disputed material facts" depend on the object of the process. In order to determine these facts, the judge must consider the narratives of litigants and the convergence between the primary facts and evidential facts from the case. Accordingly, the law must require lawyers not to use generic stories, and the facts contained in the court decision ordering present evidence must not be generic either. Based on an example of tort law, this paper shows that the hermeneutic approach rather than the analytical one provides justification for the convergence between both types of facts.
|Translated title of the contribution||Hermeneutical reasoning and "disputed material facts"|
|Number of pages||25|
|Journal||Revista Chilena de Derecho|
|State||Published - 1 Jan 2017|