Neither party to a contract is supposed to take advantage of any obvious error. Bad contracts do not live up to any technical or moral obligation to guide proper, responsible decisions. They cop out, trying to get the best of all worlds while covering up mistakes. They’ll say something like “… in the case of a conflict, the more expensive detail will apply.”
Better general contracts, on the other hand, will attempt to provide some mechanism to more definitely determine which kind of information takes precedence in the case of a conflict. [The Pass-Through Clause (see Section 3.3.5 of the Manual) ensures that the application will flow down to each respective “Plans and Specs” subcontract.] This kind of treatment will also be found in most federal and many state construction contracts. If there is no language to guide you, Company Policy will follow the typical rules as stated below to resolve conflicts between the plans, specifications, and other contract provisions:
1. Amendments and addenda take precedence over the specifications.
2. The specifications take precedence over the plans.
3. Stated dimensions take precedence over scaled dimensions.
4. Large-scale details take precedence over smaller-scale ones.
5. Schedules take precedence over other data given on the plans.
In addition to these rules that hopefully will be clearly stated in the contract, correct legal consideration provides that specific terms, conditions, and requirements are given greater weight than is given general language designed to cover a multitude of circumstances (boilerplate). It is recognized that the specific language was designed with the intention to accommodate a unique circumstance. It is therefore reasonable to assume that it so considers the precise conditions. Supplementary General Conditions will therefore take precedence over the General Conditions.
Post your comment on this topic.