Legal Definitions - disconformity

In a legal context, disconformity refers to a significant deviation or inconsistency, particularly when a party introduces new facts, claims, or defenses in a legal proceeding that were not part of the original scope of the dispute or were not previously raised. It signifies a departure from the issues initially presented or expected.

• Example 1: Defendant's Answer to a Lawsuit

  Imagine a situation where a plaintiff sues a car dealership for selling them a defective vehicle, alleging a breach of warranty. The dealership's legal response, known as their "answer," not only denies the breach of warranty but also includes a counterclaim accusing the plaintiff of intentionally damaging the car after the purchase, seeking compensation for that damage. This accusation was not part of the plaintiff's original complaint.

  This scenario demonstrates disconformity because the dealership's counterclaim introduces an entirely new legal issue and set of facts (intentional damage) that goes beyond simply responding to the plaintiff's initial claim about a defective vehicle. The dealership's pleading deviates from the original scope of the lawsuit.

• Example 2: Amended Complaint Introducing New Claims

  Consider a small business that initially files a lawsuit against a competitor for trademark infringement, claiming the competitor used a similar logo. Several months later, the small business files an "amended complaint" that, in addition to the trademark infringement, adds a completely new claim alleging the competitor also engaged in unfair business practices by poaching their key employees, a matter not mentioned in the original filing.

  The amended complaint illustrates disconformity because it introduces a new cause of action (unfair business practices and employee poaching) that was not part of the initial legal action. It significantly expands the scope of the lawsuit beyond the original allegations of trademark infringement.

• Example 3: New Arguments on Appeal

  Suppose a tenant is sued by their landlord for unpaid rent. During the trial, the tenant's lawyer argues that the lease agreement was invalid because the landlord failed to make necessary repairs. After losing the trial, the tenant appeals the decision. In their appellate brief, the tenant's new lawyer primarily argues that the lease was invalid because the tenant was a minor when they signed it, an argument that was never presented or argued to the trial judge.

  This situation shows disconformity because the argument about the tenant's minority status is a new legal theory introduced at the appellate stage, deviating significantly from the arguments made and evidence presented during the original trial. Appellate courts generally review issues that were raised and decided below, so introducing entirely new arguments constitutes a disconformity from the trial record.