In harmonization, if two statutes overlap but one is more specific, what should you do?

• A. Always give priority to the newer statute regardless.
• B. Prefer the more specific later statute if it addresses the issue in greater detail.
• C. Discard both and rely on common law.
• D. Split the difference between the two statutes.

Answer: (B)

When statutes cover the same subject, apply the provision that is more specific about the issue. A more detailed statute reflects a focused legislative intent to regulate that particular situation with precision, so it should govern the aspect it addresses, while the more general statute fills in only what the specific one does not. This approach keeps rules predictable and avoids conflicts by letting the precise provision trump the broader one for the matters it directly covers.

In practice, this means if a general law applies broadly but a later statute adds detailed rules for a specific context, you use the detailed, later statute for that context and rely on the general law only for issues not addressed by the specific provision. The other options don’t fit because recency alone doesn’t determine which rule governs, common law isn’t the default when a relevant statute exists, and you don’t split the difference between incompatible statutes.