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.
Washington Conflict of Terms refers to a legal principle that arises in contract law. It refers to a situation when there is a conflict between different terms or provisions within a contract, resulting in ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the intentions of the parties involved. This conflict can lead to disputes and difficulties in interpreting the contract. In the state of Washington, there are several types of conflicts of terms that may occur within a contract: 1. Express vs. Implied Terms: The conflict arises when there is a contradiction between explicit written terms and implied terms suggested by the nature or purpose of the contract. Washington courts take into consideration both express and implied terms to ascertain the parties' intent. 2. General vs. Specific Terms: This conflict arises when there is a conflict between general provisions of a contract and specific provisions that govern certain aspects of the agreement. Courts in Washington tend to give more weight to specific terms when interpreting a contract. 3. Condition vs. Warranty: A conflict may occur when there is a disagreement between conditions and warranties stated in a contract. Conditions are essential terms that, if not met, entitle the non-breaching party to terminate the contract. Warranties, on the other hand, are promises regarding the quality or performance of goods or services. Washington's law distinguishes between these two types of terms and treats them differently. 4. Written vs. Oral Terms: When there is a conflict between written and oral terms, the issue of 'patrol evidence' may arise. Patrol evidence refers to any oral or written evidence outside the written contract that can clarify or explain the intentions of the parties. Washington follows the patrol evidence rule, which generally holds that written terms prevail over prior or contemporaneous oral agreements. 5. Ambiguous Terms: Sometimes, contract terms may be subject to different interpretations or multiple meanings, leading to uncertainty or ambiguity. Washington courts strive to interpret such ambiguous terms based on the intent of the parties, considering the contract as a whole and the surrounding circumstances. When faced with a Washington Conflict of Terms, it is crucial to seek legal advice to understand the implications and potential remedies. Resolving conflicts often involves analyzing the contract language, considering the parties' intent, and applying relevant legal principles established by Washington courts.Washington Conflict of Terms refers to a legal principle that arises in contract law. It refers to a situation when there is a conflict between different terms or provisions within a contract, resulting in ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the intentions of the parties involved. This conflict can lead to disputes and difficulties in interpreting the contract. In the state of Washington, there are several types of conflicts of terms that may occur within a contract: 1. Express vs. Implied Terms: The conflict arises when there is a contradiction between explicit written terms and implied terms suggested by the nature or purpose of the contract. Washington courts take into consideration both express and implied terms to ascertain the parties' intent. 2. General vs. Specific Terms: This conflict arises when there is a conflict between general provisions of a contract and specific provisions that govern certain aspects of the agreement. Courts in Washington tend to give more weight to specific terms when interpreting a contract. 3. Condition vs. Warranty: A conflict may occur when there is a disagreement between conditions and warranties stated in a contract. Conditions are essential terms that, if not met, entitle the non-breaching party to terminate the contract. Warranties, on the other hand, are promises regarding the quality or performance of goods or services. Washington's law distinguishes between these two types of terms and treats them differently. 4. Written vs. Oral Terms: When there is a conflict between written and oral terms, the issue of 'patrol evidence' may arise. Patrol evidence refers to any oral or written evidence outside the written contract that can clarify or explain the intentions of the parties. Washington follows the patrol evidence rule, which generally holds that written terms prevail over prior or contemporaneous oral agreements. 5. Ambiguous Terms: Sometimes, contract terms may be subject to different interpretations or multiple meanings, leading to uncertainty or ambiguity. Washington courts strive to interpret such ambiguous terms based on the intent of the parties, considering the contract as a whole and the surrounding circumstances. When faced with a Washington Conflict of Terms, it is crucial to seek legal advice to understand the implications and potential remedies. Resolving conflicts often involves analyzing the contract language, considering the parties' intent, and applying relevant legal principles established by Washington courts.
