Obviously, needs care of legislator. More difficult: when does contradiction exist?
It’s not a simple logic problem, i.e., that A cannot be. Check out the Dentist Calgary
E.g 1: must put license plate on care on jan 1 but then also says crime to work on car on jan 1. its harsh, but not against logic.
How to remedy?
Find guilty of crime and then remit punishment because he worked under compulsion of statute. But if no value in that, one of two options how to interpret of statute>
1. that section making work on that day a crime overrides provision concerning license plates, so that you can postpone installing of license plates on jan 2 or
2. license plates provision overrides work prohibition.
BEST solution: combine these two, that both are within the law.
Eg. 2: From actual decision in US v Cardiff: president of company of manufacturing food convicted of crim of refusing to permit a federal inspector to enter his factory to determine whether it was complying with Federal Food, drug and Cosmeic Act. Problem, act seems to say that inspector has right to enter factory but that owner has right to keep huim out by refusing permission. Remedy?: —
—- Interpret act to mean that owner violates act if AFTER granting consent he THEN refuses entry. i.e man doesn’t have to make a promise, but if he does, he may fasten a liability on himself by doing so.
Supreme Court didn’t accept this, not because of lack of logic, but because didn’t accord with statutory intention. Held that clash between to provisions produced a result too ambiguous to give adequate warning of the nature of the crim: the Court therefore set the conviction aside.