直接起矛盾的两条条文之一。此时会给哪一条较重的分量还有其他耳熟能详的说法，例如是：(1) 手写（written）、打印或戳盖上去的条文/文字超越（或优先于）印本条文/文字，而手写条文/文字优于打印的条文/文字；(2) 合约中由订约方自己选用的文字如修改、附加的部分（amendments and additions）优于印本条文（printed clause）；(3) 附件（addendum）又优于附加条文，后面的附件优先于前面的附件；(4) 面窄与特别针对一件事的条文是超越广泛与一般性的条文。
5.1 分量轻重要看订约方刻意显示的重点与选择的文字
上述的说法其实都是出自一个原因，就是去找出订约双方所用的文字中表达出来的真正意图。而更好能够体现双方真正意图与谈判时有更大可能去看过与想过，不论是以任何形式出现在一份合约中，都应该给予更重的分量。这种形式包括是像上述所讲或其他的，是手写、附件、红字出现在一份黑字的合约、粗体字、针对面比较窄与特别针对一件事、明示为“首要条文”（paramount clause）、文字说明是不管其他条文怎样说（notwithstanding anything to the contrary）等等。这里的精神是Bingham勋爵在The ―Starsin‖ (2003) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep. 571中认为只是一般的常识，说：
“Secondly, it is common sense that greater weight should attach to terms which the particular contracting parties have chosen to include in the contract than to pre-printed terms probably devised to cover very many situations to which the particular contracting parties have never addressed their minds. It is unnecessary to quote the classical statement of this rule by Lord Ellenborough in Robertson v. French …”。
5.1.2 手写/打字条文超越印本条文
这方面较出名的案例是The ―Athinoula‖ (1980) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep. 481，在该案例中Mocatta大法官说：“当一条打字条文与一条印本条文起冲突时，普遍确立的原则就是打字条文优先。”（Clause 18 … is a typed clause, whereas clause 8 is a printed clause; and where there is a conflict between two such clauses it is well established that the typed clause should prevail.）。
另在《Chitty on Contracts》第29版12-070段也有说如下：
“Printed and written clauses. Where the contract is contained in a printed form with writing superadded, the written words, if there should be any reasonable doubt about the sense and meaning of the whole, are to have greater effect attributed to them than the printed words, inasmuch as the written words are the immediate language and terms selected by the parties themselves for the expression of their meaning. And the printed words are a general formula adapted equally to their case and that of all other contracting parties upon similar occasions and subjects. Nevertheless, it is open to the parties to stipulate in their printed conditions of
contract that written provisions appended to the printed form are not to override, modify or affect in any way the application or printed form are not to override, modify or affect in any way the application of interpretation of that which is contained in the printed conditions, and effect must then be given to such a stipulation even though this is contrary to the ordinary rule.”。
5.1.3面窄与特别针对一件事的条文超越广泛与一般性的条文
这方面可举The ―Brabant‖ (1965) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep. 546为例。案情是一份期租合约，标准格式是用的是Baltime，它有一条印本条文第13条，文字上与金康租约的第2条一致，是对船东非常有利，去豁免了船东对货损的责任，即使是由于船员的疏忽与过错所引起。该条文可去部分节录如下：
“13. The Owner only to be responsible … for loss or damage to goods on board, if such … loss has been caused by want of due diligence on the part of the Owners or their Manager in making the Vessel seaworthy and fitted for the voyage or any other personal act or omission or default of the Owners or their Manager. The Owners not to be responsible in any other case nor for damage … whatsoever and howsoever caused even if caused by the neglect or default of their servants…”。
但双方约定了另一条第28条附加条文，说明是清洁船舱是船东的责任，如下： “28. The decks and holds and other cargo spaces to be properly cleaned at Owners‘ risk and expense before loading.”。
船舶在一个装运木质纸浆的航次中，因船舱肮脏而导致货损，船东在提单下赔了钱。船东之后向承租人要求补偿，因为有第9条文说明承租人要补偿船东所有因签发提单而导致的责任。但要成功，船东必须证明这一个货损是在租约下他不必负责的，而是因为签发了提单而带来的比租约更重的责任。这就导致了第13条文与第28条文之间的矛盾。如果根据第13条文，船东是不必对船员疏忽（这包括在装货前好好清洁船舱）的后果负责。但这与第28条文有矛盾，因为它说明清洁船舱是船东的责任。而第28条文的文字是十分清楚，船舱不清洁的后果与损失是由船东来承担。McNair大法官是去加上订约背景（比如是租约为了去装木质纸浆这种清洁货物）后，这样去解释该条文： “By the clause the owners are at risk that the holds shall be properly cleaned. The owners bear that risk and, if the holds are not properly cleaned, the risk eventuates and they are liable for any damage resulting therefrom. This seems to be the plain meaning of the clause according to its grammatical meaning and accords with what was presumably the intention of the parties to be deduced from the words and the surrounding circumstances, especially bearing in mind that it is an additional clause apparently designed in relation to the known intention that the vessel had been chartered for carrying woodpulp.”。
McNair大法官也考虑到清洁船舱肯定是船员的工作，船东不会自己去干这个活。所以，第13条文针对船员疏忽，但没有对船东自己疏忽免责这一点区别在本案背景是没有意思，也无法去消除与第28条文的矛盾。固然，在本案例中可以以第28条文是附加条文，所以比印本格式的第13条文分量更重而解释得过去。但这不是每一个案件都说得通，因为有情况是第13与第28条文都出现在印本格式内或附加条文内。在该案例，承租人大律师所争的主要是第28条文有一个特定的目的，加上是面窄，应该有更重的分量。他说：
“The construction of Clause 28 expressly provided for a specific result to be achieved, namely for the holds to be properly cleaned before leaving. Secondly, it expressly placed the obligation in the clause upon the owners…. Clause 28 made no commercial sense if that plain breach could be offset by reliance on Clause 13.”。
McNair大法官判是船东的补偿要求败诉，租约的第28条文超越了第13条文。这一来，可见是第28条文在整体解释起来分量是比第13条文重，但没有去否定第13条文的价值。可想到是第13条文仍然适用在船员疏忽与过错的情况，只要不涉及第28条文的清洁船舱，船东仍然可受到保护。这一个判法在The ―Mariasmi‖ (1970) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep. 247也有提到说：“Mr. Justice McNair held that the special provisions of clause 28 prevailed over the more general provisions by way of exception in clause 13, and accordingly the owners failed.”。
接下去介绍另一个同样判法的先例，就是The ―Mariasmi‖ (1970) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep. 247。该先例中所涉及到的两条起矛盾的条文均为附加条文，在这种情况下就不能好像The ―Brabant‖可用附加条文超越印本条文去解释。这两条起矛盾的条文是： “Clause 21:
Should the vessel not be ready to load in accordance with the definite notice, the Owners to be responsible at loading port(s) for any expenses incurred thereby, such as demurrage on canal barges and or railway wagons, warehousing and extra transport charges in this connection, force majeure always excepted. Such expenses to be paid by the Owners or to be covered by deposit to Brokers‘ Agents at the loading port(s) until the final accounts are available.
Clause 29:
Voyage Charter Party Clause Paramount …”。
案情是―Mariasmi‖在一个程租合约中去欧洲港口装货去斯里兰卡，但不幸在第一装港鹿特丹开航去第二装港安特卫普的时候半途因船员航行疏忽而发生船舶碰撞。这导致船舶抵达安特卫普后因为要检查与修理，又延误了13天才能开始起装货物。于是承租人损
失了额外的仓库费用、驳船的滞期费等。但由于租约的第29条文（所谓著名的租约首要条文）是去合并《海牙规则》，而《海牙规则》是船东对船员的航行疏忽免责。所以表面看来承租人如果要去向船东索赔因船舶碰撞带来的损失将会没有希望。在该先例，涉及是船东作为原告去向承租人索赔滞期费及运费。这一来，承租人在同一个诉讼中要求去把这一笔安特卫普的费用在索赔中对冲或反索赔。
但重要的还是去看租约条文本身是否有依据可让承租人索赔这一笔安特卫普的费用。承租人说是有，这是根据第21条文，它明确针对如果船舶根据抵达通知未能备妥装货就要对这种额外的仓库费用与驳船滞期费等负责，除非是不可抗力（force majeure）的原因导致船舶未能备妥。在这次碰撞事故，涉及的是船员航行疏忽，当然不是不可抗力的免责。
船东反驳是说第29条文合并《海牙规则》有船东对船员航行疏忽的免责，而且第29条文是说明首要（paramount），就应该去超越其他与之起矛盾的条文，例如是第21条文。
Mocatta大法官判是第29条文中的“首要”一词不应该给太多的分量，这种条文也经常见到在租约或提单，它有广泛的针对面，只是被订约双方随手拈来使用。还有根据船东的解释就会令第21条文中的一句免责（对不可抗力的免责）失去了任何意义。所以，还是要找一个协调让每一条文都有一定的解释。Mocatta大法官看来最重要的依据判第21条文超越第29条文就是后者面广与在市场上普遍被使用，但前者面窄而且是明显特别被订约方设计的条文，市场上很少见到，更好去显示双方订约意图，说：
“… Here clause 21 is a clause specifically designed – I say this by reason of its language, if by reason of nothing else – to deal with a limited range of circumstances, and to deal with that range only, whereas clause 29 has a vastly wider range of application….
… that clause 29 is a clause taken off the peg, while clause 21 is tailor-made for a particular purpose.”。
5.1.4 文字超越数字
从常理去看，人们在数字上较为容易犯错，例如少打一个零。但相对比较长的文字，出错的机会就比较低。这也是为什么在一些比较严肃的法律文件中，经常会在数字后去加上文字，例如在10,000美元后去加上一个括号以文字补充（ten thousand dollars）。如果它们之间出现矛盾，例如阿拉伯字的10,000美元多了或少了一个零，应以文字的补充为准。这里的一些说法有Tindal大法官在Saunderson v. Piper (1839) 5 Bing.N.C. 425中说的：
“… we can shake the rule of commercial writers, that where a different appears between the figures and the words of a bill, it is safer to attend to the words.”。
另可见Simond大法官在Re Hammond (1938) 3 All E.R. 308中也有说道在商业合约中，有这个表面的规则：
“No doubt there is a prima facie rule that, where words and figures conflict, the words ought to prevail, but no case has been brought to my notice where the rule has been applied otherwise than in the case of commercial documents.”。
5.1.5 主合约中的文字与目的超越合并文件中的文字
合并文件虽然被视为是主合约的延续部分（in extenso），一并要去考虑与作出解释。但显然，分量是主合约为重，毕竟它所用的条文/文字都会是经过双方的谈判与考虑后才约定，但合并文件就有机会是贪图方便与因为通常的做法去将其包括在内。举例说，涉及信用证操作有无数的人士，这些有关文件都会去合并了UCP 500，但笔者敢打赌在这些操作的人士中不会有超过5%曾经把UCP 500从头到尾看过一遍，更不用说是充分了解了。这里的一些说法可去节录Buckley大法官在Modern Building Wales Ltd v. Limmer and Trinidad Co Ltd (1975) 1 W.L.R. 1281, CA中所说的：
“Where parties by an agreement import the terms of some other document as part of their agreement those terms must be imported in their entirety, in my judgment, but subject to this: that if any of the imported terms in any way conflicts with the expressly agreed terms, the latter must prevail over what would otherwise be imported.”。
另可见Parker大法官在Sabah Flout and Feed Mills Sdn Bhd v. Comfez Ltd (1988) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep. 18, CA中所说的：
“Those passages lend support to the proposition that if an incorporated document contains provisions which conflict with the provisions of the written document, then the terms of the written document would, in the ordinary way, prevail. For my part I am prepared to accept that is one rule of construction which may be applied in circumstances such as these.”。
至于在另一种情况，就是主合约中的目的（purpose）十分明确，但被合并文件中的文字却有严重的矛盾。这一来，应该是以主合约的目的为准。这里最好的例子是在海事著名的The ―Saxon Star‖ [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 73.先例，该先例的租约，好像大部分的租约一样，以明示条文去合并1924年的《海牙规则》或美国1936年的《海上货物运输法》。这种条文被称为首要条文，文字上是如下：
“It is agreed that the … Paramount Clause … as attached, [is] to be incorporated in this charter-party.
Paramount Clause
This bill of lading shall have effects subject to the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of the United States, approved April 16th, 1936, which shall be deemed to be incorporated