Definition
In legal usage, "difference" carries a specific and narrower meaning than its ordinary sense. In the context of arbitration agreements and submission clauses, **difference** means a disagreement or dispute between parties — the matter to be submitted for resolution by a neutral third party. The word appears in arbitration provisions as the trigger condition: the parties agree to submit their "differences" to arbitration, meaning any contested claim, grievance, or dispute arising under the agreement.
Outside the arbitration context, the term appears occasionally in procedural and equitable settings to describe a point of contention or an unresolved matter between parties, but the arbitration sense is the dominant legal usage.
Common Language
**Modern common usage (Wiktionary):** To distinguish or differentiate; also used as a noun meaning the state or measure of being unlike.
**Historical common usage (Webster's 1913):** The act of differing; the state or measure of being different or unlike; distinction; dissimilarity; also, disagreement in opinion, dissension, or controversy.
Webster's 1913 actually captures the legal usage better than the modern Wiktionary entry. The older common meaning — disagreement, dissension, controversy — is precisely the legal meaning. Modern common usage has drifted toward the abstract mathematical or logical sense (the difference between two quantities), which is the usage researchers should not import into legal texts.
Common Confusion
Researchers encounter "difference" in arbitration clauses and may read it as a vague or generic filler term. It is not. In arbitration drafting, "differences" is a term of art with scope implications: courts have interpreted what counts as a "difference" to determine whether a particular dispute falls within the submission agreement. A clause reading "all differences arising between the parties" has been construed broadly; a clause limiting submission to "differences regarding payment" has been construed narrowly. Do not treat the word as interchangeable with "disputes," "claims," or "controversies" without examining the specific clause and applicable case law.
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research trap is treating "difference" as a throwaway word. In older arbitration agreements, submission clauses, and insurance policies, "differences" is the operative word defining the scope of arbitrable matters. Whether a particular controversy falls within that scope turns on what the drafters meant by "difference" — and courts have interpreted it.
Black's 2nd Edition ties the term directly to arbitration submissions and cites two cases: one from Colorado (*Fravert v. Fesler*) and one from North Carolina (*Pioneer Mfg. Co. v. Phenix Assur. Co.*). Researchers working with pre-20th-century arbitration clauses should note that this vocabulary was standard — "differences" was the preferred term before "disputes" and "controversies" became dominant in modern drafting.
The term also appears in a notable family law context. "Irreconcilable differences" and "irreconcilable breakdown" are the statutory phrases used in no-fault divorce grounds across many jurisdictions. That usage is a legislative descendant of the same core meaning — a disagreement or incompatibility between parties that cannot be resolved — but it functions in a distinct doctrinal setting with its own interpretive rules.
Corpus researchers should also be alert to the maxim included in Black's at this entry: *Difficile est ut unus homo vicem duorum sustineat* ("It is difficult that one man should sustain the place of two"), drawn from 4 Coke 118. This maxim is filed under "Difference" as a sequential entry, not as a definition of the term. Do not conflate the two.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's 2nd Edition defines "difference" in the arbitration-submission sense only, citing two cases to anchor the definition. The entry is brief and purposeful — Black's did not treat this as a major standalone concept but as a working term needing clarification in the arbitration context.
What the historical dictionaries miss: the family law usage. "Irreconcilable differences" as no-fault divorce language postdates Black's 2nd Edition and does not appear in early legal dictionaries. Researchers using historical sources for that phrase will find nothing there and must look to statutory compilations and family law treatises beginning in the late 20th century.
Jurisdictional Note
"Irreconcilable differences" as a divorce ground is codified differently across states — some require a finding that reconciliation is unlikely, others treat the allegation itself as sufficient. The arbitration sense of "difference" is not jurisdiction-specific but the scope given to the term in a particular clause depends on the law governing the agreement.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
family_38: Divorce — No-Fault Grounds (Irreconcilable Differences, Irretrievable Breakdown) (The Law Mind Family Law Encyclopedia)
realestate_98: Differing Site Conditions — Type I (Misrepresentation) and Type II (Unusual Conditions) (The Law Mind Real Estate Transactions & Construction Encyclopedia)