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.
Kansas Conflict of Terms refers to the legal doctrine applied in the state of Kansas which assists in interpreting conflicting terms in legal documents, contracts, or agreements. This doctrine primarily focuses on deciphering the intentions of the parties involved to resolve any ambiguity or uncertainty in the language used. In legal terms, a "conflict of terms" occurs when different provisions or clauses within a document appear to contradict or negate each other, creating uncertainty about the actual interpretation. The Kansas Conflict of Terms doctrine provides guidelines and principles to determine the true meaning and intent behind such conflicting terms, ensuring fairness and reliability in legal proceedings. There are different types of Kansas Conflict of Terms recognized in the state's jurisprudence: 1. Material vs. Immaterial Terms: This type of conflict arises when there is a clash between crucial or "material" terms and less important or "immaterial" terms within a document. The court examines the overall purpose and importance of each term to determine which one should prevail. 2. Specific vs. General Terms: In this scenario, conflicts arise when a general term contradicts a specific term within the same document. The Kansas Conflict of Terms doctrine requires the court to give greater weight to the specific term over the general term, as it is deemed to express a more precise intention of the parties involved. 3. Later vs. Earlier Terms: This type of conflict occurs when two or more terms in a contract appear to have opposing meanings due to their order of appearance. Under the Kansas Conflict of Terms doctrine, the court typically gives preference to the later term as it is presumed that it reflects the most recent intent of the parties involved. 4. Written vs. Typed/Printed Terms: When a document contains both handwritten terms and typed or printed terms that conflict, the court may apply the principle of the Kansas Conflict of Terms doctrine to determine the enforceable terms. Usually, handwritten terms take precedence over typed or printed terms since they are seen as more deliberate and intentional. 5. Ambiguity in Terms: In cases where the language used is vague or ambiguous, the Kansas Conflict of Terms doctrine assists the court in interpreting the conflicting terms by looking at extrinsic evidence, such as the parties' conduct, custom, and industry practices. It is essential to note that each case involving the Kansas Conflict of Terms doctrine is unique, and the court's decision depends on the specific circumstances and facts involved. By applying this doctrine, courts in Kansas strive to uphold the intent and fairness in legal contracts and agreements, ensuring clarity and consistency in interpreting conflicting terms.Kansas Conflict of Terms refers to the legal doctrine applied in the state of Kansas which assists in interpreting conflicting terms in legal documents, contracts, or agreements. This doctrine primarily focuses on deciphering the intentions of the parties involved to resolve any ambiguity or uncertainty in the language used. In legal terms, a "conflict of terms" occurs when different provisions or clauses within a document appear to contradict or negate each other, creating uncertainty about the actual interpretation. The Kansas Conflict of Terms doctrine provides guidelines and principles to determine the true meaning and intent behind such conflicting terms, ensuring fairness and reliability in legal proceedings. There are different types of Kansas Conflict of Terms recognized in the state's jurisprudence: 1. Material vs. Immaterial Terms: This type of conflict arises when there is a clash between crucial or "material" terms and less important or "immaterial" terms within a document. The court examines the overall purpose and importance of each term to determine which one should prevail. 2. Specific vs. General Terms: In this scenario, conflicts arise when a general term contradicts a specific term within the same document. The Kansas Conflict of Terms doctrine requires the court to give greater weight to the specific term over the general term, as it is deemed to express a more precise intention of the parties involved. 3. Later vs. Earlier Terms: This type of conflict occurs when two or more terms in a contract appear to have opposing meanings due to their order of appearance. Under the Kansas Conflict of Terms doctrine, the court typically gives preference to the later term as it is presumed that it reflects the most recent intent of the parties involved. 4. Written vs. Typed/Printed Terms: When a document contains both handwritten terms and typed or printed terms that conflict, the court may apply the principle of the Kansas Conflict of Terms doctrine to determine the enforceable terms. Usually, handwritten terms take precedence over typed or printed terms since they are seen as more deliberate and intentional. 5. Ambiguity in Terms: In cases where the language used is vague or ambiguous, the Kansas Conflict of Terms doctrine assists the court in interpreting the conflicting terms by looking at extrinsic evidence, such as the parties' conduct, custom, and industry practices. It is essential to note that each case involving the Kansas Conflict of Terms doctrine is unique, and the court's decision depends on the specific circumstances and facts involved. By applying this doctrine, courts in Kansas strive to uphold the intent and fairness in legal contracts and agreements, ensuring clarity and consistency in interpreting conflicting terms.
