TOWARDS EFFECTIVE BILINGUAL CONTRACTS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation concentrates primarily on bilingual contracts and solving their linguisticdisputes within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Particularly, when contracting parties decide to draft their agreement as a bilingual agreement and later encounter linguistic disputes in their contract since contracting terms have dual or multiple interpretations, there are currently no effective solutions for their disputes without serious consideration of interpretive methods. Thus, this study proposes applying internal and external interpretive rules that would enable the parties to reach an agreement and solve their disputes, especially when each party insists on his or her own language. This study also shows the dramatic improvement of the Saudi economy and its financial, legal, and economic structural reforms, which have attracted new foreign merchants to invest with a full ownership of businesses in the country and increased the chance of drafting bilingual contracts within the Kingdom. Thus, this dissertation recommends giving linguistic differences in these documents careful consideration in order to solve their related disputes. Moreover, it demonstrates that this topic has not been discussed in detail within the legal system of Saudi Arabia, specifically the linguistic disputes over the meanings of contracting terms when such terms have various interpretations based on the language used. Therefore, this increases the significance of studying other countries' experiences, such as the Province of Quebec’s and the Republic of Finland’s, in terms of interpreting bilingual agreements to propose some internal and external interpretive rules that would be useful to be implemented by the Saudi courts and arbitral tribunals when facing linguistic disputes in bilingual contracts, in accordance with Islamic Law and Saudi law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".