AMI 2421 Contract Interpretation—Specific and General Provisions

In Pate v. Goyne, 212 Ark. 51, 54, 204 S.W.2d 900 (1947), a case involving the interpretation of a real estate agency contract, the court stated the rule that “[w]here there is inconsistency between general and specific provisions, the specific provisions ordinarily qualify meaning of the general provisions …..” Likewise, in Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Winburn Tile Mfg. Co., 461 F.2d 984 (8th Cir. 1972), the Eighth Circuit applied the rule set out in Pate to enforce a specific indemnity provision in conflict with more general terms of an “Industrial Track Agreement.”; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 203, cmt. e (1981).