ais523 wrote: >> 6005 D 1 2.0 Murphy Contract precedence > AGAINST [doesn't a) mean that a contract can talk about precedence and > thus prevent the rules taking precedence over it?]
a) pertains to SHALL vs. SHALL NOT; like R1742(2), it says "don't put yourself in that situation in the first place". EXCUSED may be appropriate, depending. b) and subsequent clauses pertain to CAN vs. CANNOT. CAN vs. SHALL NOT is not a conflict. Neither is SHALL vs. CANNOT (again, EXCUSED may be appropriate; this used to be blanket-protected, but I think we ditched it because scammers might be able to contrive a CANNOT).
