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.
New Hampshire Conflict of Terms refers to a legal doctrine concerning the interpretation and application of conflicting contract terms in the state of New Hampshire, USA. When contracts contain provisions that seem to contradict or conflict with each other, this doctrine helps determine which provision should prevail and govern the agreement. By understanding New Hampshire Conflict of Terms, individuals can ensure the enforceability and clarity of their contractual obligations. There are two main types of New Hampshire Conflict of Terms: the "specific over general" rule and the "handwritten over typewritten" rule. 1. Specific over general rule: Under this principle, if a contract includes specific provisions that address a particular issue, those provisions take precedence over general provisions that may appear elsewhere in the agreement. This rule ensures that parties' explicit intentions are given more weight when conflicts arise. For example, if a contract states that a specific payment method should be used for a particular transaction, but a general provision elsewhere in the contract allows for other forms of payment, the specific provision will prevail in New Hampshire. This ensures clarity and predictability in contract interpretation. 2. Handwritten over typewritten rule: In situations where a contract includes both handwritten and typewritten terms, the handwritten provisions are typically given greater weight in determining the parties' intent. This principle recognizes that handwritten additions or amendments are likely the result of specific negotiations and reflect the genuine intentions of the parties. For instance, if a typewritten clause mentioned a delivery date of "30 days," but a handwritten addition specifies a different date, New Hampshire courts will prioritize the handwritten provision as the more accurate representation of the parties' agreement. These New Hampshire Conflict of Terms principles allow for a consistent and fair approach in resolving conflicts within contracts, ensuring that parties' intentions are honored and disputes are minimized. Companies and individuals entering into contracts in New Hampshire should take these principles into consideration and craft their agreements with clarity and precision to avoid any ambiguity or confusion regarding conflicting terms.New Hampshire Conflict of Terms refers to a legal doctrine concerning the interpretation and application of conflicting contract terms in the state of New Hampshire, USA. When contracts contain provisions that seem to contradict or conflict with each other, this doctrine helps determine which provision should prevail and govern the agreement. By understanding New Hampshire Conflict of Terms, individuals can ensure the enforceability and clarity of their contractual obligations. There are two main types of New Hampshire Conflict of Terms: the "specific over general" rule and the "handwritten over typewritten" rule. 1. Specific over general rule: Under this principle, if a contract includes specific provisions that address a particular issue, those provisions take precedence over general provisions that may appear elsewhere in the agreement. This rule ensures that parties' explicit intentions are given more weight when conflicts arise. For example, if a contract states that a specific payment method should be used for a particular transaction, but a general provision elsewhere in the contract allows for other forms of payment, the specific provision will prevail in New Hampshire. This ensures clarity and predictability in contract interpretation. 2. Handwritten over typewritten rule: In situations where a contract includes both handwritten and typewritten terms, the handwritten provisions are typically given greater weight in determining the parties' intent. This principle recognizes that handwritten additions or amendments are likely the result of specific negotiations and reflect the genuine intentions of the parties. For instance, if a typewritten clause mentioned a delivery date of "30 days," but a handwritten addition specifies a different date, New Hampshire courts will prioritize the handwritten provision as the more accurate representation of the parties' agreement. These New Hampshire Conflict of Terms principles allow for a consistent and fair approach in resolving conflicts within contracts, ensuring that parties' intentions are honored and disputes are minimized. Companies and individuals entering into contracts in New Hampshire should take these principles into consideration and craft their agreements with clarity and precision to avoid any ambiguity or confusion regarding conflicting terms.
