Short answer. The specific clause generally controls. Rule 130, Section 13 provides that in construing an instrument, the parties' intention is pursued, and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the particular provision is paramount to the general one — a specific intent controls a general one it conflicts with.
What the law says
In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former.
Rule 130, Section 13 — Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions. Read the full provision →
What the law says
So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it.
Rule 130, Section 13 — Interpretation according to intention; general and particular provisions. Read the full provision →
The overarching goal: the parties' intention
Section 13 frames the whole exercise around pursuing the intention of the parties — construction is not an abstract linguistic exercise but an attempt to figure out what the parties actually meant. The rule about general and particular provisions is a tool serving that larger purpose. Every other interpretive principle in this part of the rule serves that same underlying inquiry, rather than functioning as a mechanical, standalone test.
Particular over general when they conflict
Where a general provision and a particular one are inconsistent, the rule makes the particular provision paramount to the general. The idea is that a specific clause addressing a situation directly better reflects the parties' actual intent for that situation than a broader, more generally worded provision does. This distinguishes the situation from Section 12's principle of giving effect to all provisions, which applies more naturally where the provisions can be harmonized rather than treated as genuinely inconsistent.
The underlying logic restated
Section 13 restates the point as a principle: a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. If the parties specifically addressed a scenario in one clause, that targeted treatment is taken as more reliable evidence of their intent for that scenario than a broadly worded, generally applicable clause. In practical terms, a court faced with a broad clause and a narrowly tailored clause addressing the same subject will generally lean toward honoring the narrower, more specific one.
How this fits with the rest of Section 12
Section 13 does not stand alone; it works alongside the neighboring rule that all the provisions of an instrument, and every part of it, should be interpreted together, giving effect to all if possible. That harmonizing preference applies when the general and particular provisions can be read consistently. It is only once a court concludes the two truly cannot be reconciled, and are genuinely inconsistent rather than merely differently worded, that Section 13's tiebreaker — favoring the particular provision — comes into play.