Kerim Aydin wrote: >In the absence of any explicit guidance in the contract, I rely on >the game custom (and method for Rules) of using numerical precedence >within the body of the contract, and find that Clause 1 has precedence >over Clauses 2-3.
I'm dubious about this. No doubt it would be possible to construct a (pseudo-)contract where this contradiction is all within a single clause. I think it's better to read it without any positional precedence. I see two sensible ways to resolve the contradiction. Firstly, the "This contract is non-binding" clause can be read as disclaiming the remainder of the text, thus taking precedence regardless of its position. Secondly, since the agreement was created by R1742's mechanism, it could be held to retain the binding contract status regardless of changes to its text, in which case "This contract is non-binding" is a false statement that must be ignored. -zefram
