This is simply a short statement that states that, in the event of a conflict between the provisions of one Article and the terms and conditions contained in prior Articles provided for in the Agreement, the parties agree that the provisions of a designated Article shall prevail.
Alaska Conflict of Terms refers to a legal doctrine that deals with contract interpretation and conflicts that arise when different provisions of a contract contradict or are in conflict with one another. This doctrine is mainly applied in contract law cases in the state of Alaska in the United States. It aims to resolve uncertainties and disputes arising from contradictory provisions within a contract. The Alaska Conflict of Terms doctrine is employed to interpret contractual provisions that conflict in terms of their meaning, obligations, or performance requirements. It ensures that parties understand and comply with the terms of their agreement, even in cases where these terms might be inconsistent or conflicting. Through this doctrine, Alaska courts strive to fairly and equitably resolve disputes without unduly favoring one party over another. There are two main types of Alaska Conflict of Terms that are commonly encountered: 1. Express Conflicts: These conflicts occur when explicit language within a contract contradicts or conflicts with other provisions. For example, if one section of a contract states that a payment is due on a specific date, but another section stipulates a different due date, an express conflict is said to exist. In such cases, the court employs interpretive techniques to determine the intent of the parties and resolve the conflict. 2. Implied Conflicts: Implied conflicts arise when different provisions within a contract are not explicitly contradictory, but their practical application may lead to conflicting results. These conflicts can emerge when different sections of a contract provide alternative methods of performance, pricing, or dispute resolution. For example, if one provision suggests resolving disputes through arbitration, while another provision indicates that disputes are subject to litigation, an implied conflict arises. Alaska courts examine the contract as a whole, taking into account surrounding circumstances and industry practices interpreting and resolve these conflicts. In conclusion, the Alaska Conflict of Terms doctrine plays a crucial role in contract law in Alaska. It helps ensure that parties to a contract understand their obligations despite conflicting provisions. By employing interpretive techniques, courts aim to fairly resolve disputes in a manner that upholds the intentions of the parties involved. Whether it is an express or implied conflict, the doctrine allows for a comprehensive analysis of contractual terms to facilitate a clear and consistent interpretation.Alaska Conflict of Terms refers to a legal doctrine that deals with contract interpretation and conflicts that arise when different provisions of a contract contradict or are in conflict with one another. This doctrine is mainly applied in contract law cases in the state of Alaska in the United States. It aims to resolve uncertainties and disputes arising from contradictory provisions within a contract. The Alaska Conflict of Terms doctrine is employed to interpret contractual provisions that conflict in terms of their meaning, obligations, or performance requirements. It ensures that parties understand and comply with the terms of their agreement, even in cases where these terms might be inconsistent or conflicting. Through this doctrine, Alaska courts strive to fairly and equitably resolve disputes without unduly favoring one party over another. There are two main types of Alaska Conflict of Terms that are commonly encountered: 1. Express Conflicts: These conflicts occur when explicit language within a contract contradicts or conflicts with other provisions. For example, if one section of a contract states that a payment is due on a specific date, but another section stipulates a different due date, an express conflict is said to exist. In such cases, the court employs interpretive techniques to determine the intent of the parties and resolve the conflict. 2. Implied Conflicts: Implied conflicts arise when different provisions within a contract are not explicitly contradictory, but their practical application may lead to conflicting results. These conflicts can emerge when different sections of a contract provide alternative methods of performance, pricing, or dispute resolution. For example, if one provision suggests resolving disputes through arbitration, while another provision indicates that disputes are subject to litigation, an implied conflict arises. Alaska courts examine the contract as a whole, taking into account surrounding circumstances and industry practices interpreting and resolve these conflicts. In conclusion, the Alaska Conflict of Terms doctrine plays a crucial role in contract law in Alaska. It helps ensure that parties to a contract understand their obligations despite conflicting provisions. By employing interpretive techniques, courts aim to fairly resolve disputes in a manner that upholds the intentions of the parties involved. Whether it is an express or implied conflict, the doctrine allows for a comprehensive analysis of contractual terms to facilitate a clear and consistent interpretation.
