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.
Arkansas Conflict of Terms is a legal concept that refers to a situation where the terms in a contract, will, or other legal document conflict with each other, creating ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the intent of the parties involved. This conflict arises when different terms within the document contradict or are inconsistent with each other, leading to a potential dispute in interpretation. In Arkansas, as in many other states, the objective of any legal document is to reflect the true intent of the parties involved. Therefore, when conflicts of terms occur, it becomes essential to determine the appropriate method of resolving the ambiguity to fulfill this objective. There are different types of Arkansas Conflict of Terms that may occur in various legal documents. One type is known as a patent ambiguity, which arises when the conflict is apparent on the face of the document itself. For example, if a will states that a person's property should be divided equally among their "children" but contradicts this by listing specific individuals as beneficiaries, a patent ambiguity arises. Another type is called a latent ambiguity, which occurs when the conflict in terms is not apparent on the face of the document, but rather arises due to external circumstances or evidence. For instance, if a contract states that "John Smith is hired as a sales executive," but there are multiple individuals named John Smith within the organization, a latent ambiguity arises as to which individual is intended to be hired. Resolving Arkansas Conflict of Terms involves several legal principles and rules. The primary goal is to interpret the document in a way that gives effect to the true intent of the parties. Courts in Arkansas apply various approaches to resolve conflicts, such as the "plain meaning rule," which gives priority to the terms that are clear and unambiguous over those that are conflicting. In situations where the conflict cannot be resolved through interpretation alone, Arkansas courts may consider extrinsic evidence, such as prior negotiations or the parties' conduct, to ascertain the true intention behind the conflicting terms. To summarize, Arkansas Conflict of Terms refers to conflicts or contradictions within legal documents that create ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the parties' intent. Patent and latent ambiguities are two types of conflicts that may arise. Resolving conflicts involves interpreting the document according to the true intent of the parties, relying on legal principles and extrinsic evidence if necessary.
