Legal Definitions - immaterial variance

An immaterial variance refers to a minor, insignificant difference between what was alleged or claimed in a legal document (like a complaint or indictment) and what is actually proven by evidence, or between what was expected and what occurred. This discrepancy is considered "immaterial" because it does not affect the fundamental legal rights or obligations of the parties involved, nor does it change the essential nature of the claim or defense. In other words, it's a small error or deviation that is not important enough to alter the outcome of a case or cause prejudice to any party.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Imagine a civil lawsuit where a plaintiff sues a contractor for breach of contract, claiming the contractor failed to install "200 square feet of dark gray tile" as specified. During the trial, evidence shows the contractor actually installed "200 square feet of charcoal gray tile." If the contract did not specify a precise shade of gray, and the slight difference in color does not impact the functionality, value, or aesthetic purpose of the tile for the plaintiff, a court would likely consider this an immaterial variance. The core obligation (installing 200 square feet of gray tile) was met, and the minor color difference doesn't fundamentally change the breach of contract claim or prejudice the plaintiff.

• Consider a criminal case where an indictment charges a defendant with a robbery that occurred on "Tuesday, May 10th." However, during the trial, witness testimony and security footage clearly establish the robbery actually took place on "Wednesday, May 11th" of the same year. If the exact date is not a critical element of the crime (e.g., the defendant's alibi doesn't hinge on that specific day, and the statute of limitations is not an issue), and the defendant was not misled or prejudiced in preparing their defense, the court would likely deem this an immaterial variance. The essential facts of the robbery, the defendant's alleged involvement, and the victim remain the same, despite the one-day discrepancy in the date.

• Suppose a landlord files an eviction notice against a tenant, stating the tenant failed to pay rent for "Apartment 3B." However, the tenant actually resides in "Apartment 3C" in the same building, and the landlord consistently accepted rent payments from the tenant for that specific unit. If all other details in the notice (tenant's name, building address, amount of overdue rent, and the reason for eviction) are correct, and the tenant clearly understood which apartment the notice referred to, the incorrect apartment number might be considered an immaterial variance. The core issue—non-payment of rent by a specific tenant in a specific building—remains unchanged, and the tenant was not confused or harmed by the minor error in the unit number.