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.
Montana Conflict of Terms is a legal doctrine that helps resolve inconsistencies or conflicts that may arise between different parts of a contract. It applies specifically to contracts governed by Montana law. This doctrine ensures that in case of conflicting terms within a contract, the court will determine which term takes precedence in order to provide clarity and enforceability. There are two main types of Montana Conflict of Terms: 1. Express Montana Conflict of Terms: This type occurs when the contract explicitly includes conflicting provisions or terms. For example, if one clause states that payment is due on the 10th of each month, while another clause states the payment is due within 30 days, this conflict needs to be resolved to avoid confusion and potential disputes. 2. Implied Montana Conflict of Terms: This type occurs when conflicts arise due to inconsistent implications or interpretations within the contract. These conflicts may not be explicitly stated but can still cause confusion or ambiguity. For instance, if a contract states that a product will be delivered "within a reasonable time," but another clause implies that delivery will be made within 7 days, the implied conflict needs to be resolved to establish a clear timeframe for delivery. Resolving Montana Conflict of Terms is typically done by applying certain principles: a. Specific Terms Prevail: If a contract includes both general and specific terms, the specific terms will usually take precedence in case of conflict. b. Later Terms Prevail: If there are conflicting provisions that were added at different times, the later-added provision will generally prevail over the earlier ones. c. Harmonious Construction: In situations where it is not possible to determine a clear precedence or resolution, the court may interpret the conflicting terms in a way that harmonizes them to the extent possible, ensuring the contract's overall purpose is achieved. Overall, the Montana Conflict of Terms doctrine is aimed at providing clarity, avoiding disputes, and ensuring that contractual obligations are enforced appropriately.Montana Conflict of Terms is a legal doctrine that helps resolve inconsistencies or conflicts that may arise between different parts of a contract. It applies specifically to contracts governed by Montana law. This doctrine ensures that in case of conflicting terms within a contract, the court will determine which term takes precedence in order to provide clarity and enforceability. There are two main types of Montana Conflict of Terms: 1. Express Montana Conflict of Terms: This type occurs when the contract explicitly includes conflicting provisions or terms. For example, if one clause states that payment is due on the 10th of each month, while another clause states the payment is due within 30 days, this conflict needs to be resolved to avoid confusion and potential disputes. 2. Implied Montana Conflict of Terms: This type occurs when conflicts arise due to inconsistent implications or interpretations within the contract. These conflicts may not be explicitly stated but can still cause confusion or ambiguity. For instance, if a contract states that a product will be delivered "within a reasonable time," but another clause implies that delivery will be made within 7 days, the implied conflict needs to be resolved to establish a clear timeframe for delivery. Resolving Montana Conflict of Terms is typically done by applying certain principles: a. Specific Terms Prevail: If a contract includes both general and specific terms, the specific terms will usually take precedence in case of conflict. b. Later Terms Prevail: If there are conflicting provisions that were added at different times, the later-added provision will generally prevail over the earlier ones. c. Harmonious Construction: In situations where it is not possible to determine a clear precedence or resolution, the court may interpret the conflicting terms in a way that harmonizes them to the extent possible, ensuring the contract's overall purpose is achieved. Overall, the Montana Conflict of Terms doctrine is aimed at providing clarity, avoiding disputes, and ensuring that contractual obligations are enforced appropriately.
