Where two inconsistent provisions in a deed cannot be reconciled, the earlier provision prevails over the later.
Citations:
(1587) 5 Co Rep 186
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Forbes v Git HL 1922
If there are conflicting provisions in a deed and they cannot be reconciled, the court may apply as a last resort the ancient rule of thumb that the earlier provision prevails over the later one. . .
Cited – Taylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd ChD 6-Jul-2004
The claimant music producer and songwriter had entered into a publishers agreement with the defendant, agreeing to work for it. He now sought to be free to work for another company. The factual background was unclear, and the contract documentation . .
Cited – Slater v Simm ChD 27-Apr-2007
The deceased and her partner did not marry but owned three properties together. They could not agree on the interpretation of the documents setting out their interests, and whether they had been varied.
Held: The court set out the various . .
Explained – Martin v Martin 1987
A property was bought by parties as ‘beneficial joint tenants in equal shares’.
Held: The words ‘in equal shares’ had the effect of severing any joint tenancy created by the first words of the phrase. The law would apply the first of two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.211396