These principles, applied to cases where two clauses of a statute seem at first glance inconsistent, dictate that both be given effect to, so long as this can be done without violating the intention of the parties. As Lord Wrenbury stated in Forbes v. Git, 1921 CanLII 406 (UK JCPC), [1922] 1 A.C. 256 (P.C): If in a deed an earlier clause is followed by a later clause which destroys altogether the obligation created by the earlier clause, the later clause is to be rejected as repugnant and the earlier clause prevails … But if the later clause does not destroy but only qualifies the earlier, then the two are to be read together and effect is to be given to the intention of the parties as disclosed by the deed as a whole.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.