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.
Kentucky Conflict of Terms is a legal principle that refers to a situation where the terms or provisions of a contract are contradictory, ambiguous, or inconsistent. This principle is important in contract law as it helps determine the intention of the parties involved and ensures fairness in contractual agreements. The Kentucky Conflict of Terms principal aims to resolve disputes arising from conflicting terms in a contract, making it necessary to decipher the true meaning and intention behind the contradictory provisions. The primary goal is to interpret the contract in a way that best reflects the mutual understanding and intent of the parties involved. There are different types of Kentucky Conflict of Terms, including: 1. Patent Conflicts: These conflicts occur when the terms in a contract are openly contradictory or incompatible with each other. For instance, if a contract specifies that a particular payment must be made on a certain date, but another provision contradicts it by stating a different date, a patent conflict arises. 2. Latent Conflicts: Unlike patent conflicts, latent conflicts are not obvious on the face of the contract but emerge due to ambiguities or inconsistencies when the contract is interpreted. For example, if a contract includes two provisions that seem compatible at first, but when viewed in conjunction with other provisions, they conflict, a latent conflict arises. 3. Internal Conflicts: Internal conflicts refer to conflicts within a single provision of the contract. These conflicts occur when different parts or clauses of the same provision are inconsistent with each other. Resolving internal conflicts requires careful analysis and interpretation to identify the intended meaning. To resolve Kentucky Conflict of Terms, courts in Kentucky typically apply certain legal principles such as the "Plain Meaning Rule" or the "Intention of the Parties" rule. The Plain Meaning Rule directs courts to give effect to the ordinary and commonly understood meaning of contract terms. On the other hand, the Intention of the Parties rule focuses on ascertaining the intent of the parties by looking at the contract as a whole, considering the circumstances of its formation. In conclusion, Kentucky Conflict of Terms is a crucial aspect of contract law that aims to resolve disputes arising from contradictory, ambiguous, or inconsistent provisions in a contract. By identifying different types of conflicts and employing legal principles, Kentucky courts strive to interpret contracts in a way that reflects the mutual understanding and intent of the parties involved.
