In The Event Of A Conflict Between This Agreement And

In the examples above, the chords are so similar that the word change seems intentional. It is not that they are totally different agreements; It is clear that someone started the foreign version and edited it to align with its jurisdiction. This raises the question: What is the meaning of word choice? So prevail gets my vote, but I could change my mind. (When I first posted this, I decided to control it, but I quickly changed my Mark Anderson comment.) I also noticed that between an American and European version of one of Amazon`s agreements (which are very similar) uses the American version “Controls” and the European version “prevails”. It is interesting to note that people seem to have strong opinions about the words to use in this context. I can`t commit to it too much. Here are my thoughts on the above-mentioned alternatives, plus another popular option, to govern: I could not find articles on whether “control,” “prevail” or “governance” should be used to resolve conflicting notions. I had a partner in China who asked to change “prevail” to “Control” when negotiating the contract. It suggested to me that the partner thought there had been a legal difference, but I did not have the opportunity to ask. forward-looking, expressly or under standard contractual terms, the intention not to be bound by a contract on the basis of subsection b; or (c) Notwithstanding the subsection (b) no contract is concluded if a party: I received the following request from reader Andrew Sinclair: Here are the contrasting amazon and Google rules (emphasizing): Here is another, Google App terms in Ireland saying “have priority,” and the corresponding U.S. conditions say “control.”