Legal-polylogism claims that multiple different logics are valid and can be employed in the argumentative justification of a system of property rights. In order for these logics to be different, they must be incompatible in at least one aspect. These incompatible logics are all valid under legal polylogism. As multiple incompatible claims on a legal issue cannot be simultaneously true, it results in contradiction. Legal-polylogism implies contradiction. Contradictions are false, therefore legal-polylogism fails.1