Legal Definitions - repugnancy

Repugnancy refers to a fundamental conflict or inconsistency between different sections, clauses, or provisions within the same legal document, such as a contract, statute, or will. When parts of a document are repugnant, they contradict each other in a way that makes it difficult or impossible to understand or apply the document's true intent without resolving the internal conflict.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: A Business Contract

  Imagine a contract for the sale of custom-built machinery. One clause states, "The seller guarantees the machinery will operate at 100 units per hour." However, another clause in the same contract specifies, "The buyer acknowledges that the machinery's maximum operational capacity is 80 units per hour." These two clauses are repugnant because they present conflicting statements about the machinery's performance. A court would need to interpret which clause takes precedence or if the contract's terms are too contradictory to enforce as written.

• Example 2: A Municipal Ordinance

  Consider a new city ordinance regarding public park usage. Section A of the ordinance declares, "All public parks shall be closed to the public between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM daily." Yet, Section D of the same ordinance states, "Permits for overnight camping in designated areas of City Park may be obtained from the Parks Department." These sections are repugnant. Section A establishes a blanket closure, while Section D creates an exception (overnight camping) that directly contradicts the general closure rule, creating confusion about when and how City Park can be used after 10:00 PM.

• Example 3: A Last Will and Testament

  In a will, one provision might state, "I bequeath all my financial assets, including all bank accounts and investment portfolios, to my daughter, Emily." Later in the same document, another provision reads, "My investment portfolio held at XYZ Brokerage shall be given to my son, David." These two provisions are repugnant. The first clause grants all investment portfolios to Emily, while the second specifically grants a particular investment portfolio (which is part of "all financial assets") to David. This creates a direct contradiction regarding the inheritance of the XYZ Brokerage portfolio.