What&#39;s the difference between a clause, provision, condition and term? In a contract, what's the difference between a clause, provision, condition and term? They seem to all refer to the same thing to me - which is basically any self contained point or requirement.
They have subtle differences. Starting with the Oxford Dictionary definitions (using the one most appropriate for a legal context): clause. 2.a particular and separate article, stipulation, or proviso in a treaty, bill, or contract. A clause is a self-contained concept within the written contract; it may have a number of subclauses. It may reference other clauses but ideally it can be read and acted on on its own. Typical contracts will contain clauses on payment, time, termination, scope etc. It is a feature of the drafting of the contract document. provision 3.a condition or requirement in a legal document: &quot;the first private prosecution under the provisions of the 1989 Water Act&quot; A provision is any condition (q.v.) or stipulation of things to be done or not be done within the contract. A provision may correspond with a clause, may span several clauses or be contained wholly within a subclause. It is a feature of the contract itself: verbal contracts will have provisions but they will not have clauses. condition 3.a state of affairs that must exist or be brought about before something else is possible or permitted: &quot;for a member to borrow money, three conditions have to be met&quot; A condition is a set of circumstances that must arise before another action can occur. There can be a &quot;condition precedent&quot; which means the condition must be satisfied before there is a contract. There can (will) also be conditions within the contract, for example, there will be conditions that must be satisfied before payment is made (like issuing an invoice). Conditions are a creature of the contract not the drafting. term 4.(terms) conditions under which an action may be undertaken or agreement reached; stipulated or agreed requirements: &quot;their solicitors had agreed terms&quot; (I don't like this definition much but it is the best they had.) A term is a provision (q.v.) in the contract for which one of the possible remedies for breach is termination of the contract by the innocent party . A provision where termination is not an available remedy is a warranty.
Because English loves homophones A lot of words in English have more than one meaning. The current front runner is run with 645 definitions in the OED. Understanding English requires more than knowing the definitions, it requires understanding the context. Warranty in a contract law context means a term the breach of which does not justify terminating the contract. Or a term of a contract rather than a representation about the contract, depending on context. Warranty also has a common meaning that makes it a synonym of guarantee. It can also mean a court order calling for the arrest of someone (an arrest warrant) or to search a premises (a search warrant). It can also mean the authorization from the government to act as a high ranking NCO in a military service - NCOs hold warrants, officers have commissions. Among others ...
Generally, contract terms and conditions must be legible, especially when one is trying to enforce the contract. If the court cannot read the contract as written, it can create its own reasonable terms. According to JD Supra(this is not for a rental lease, but a business opportunity contract): In one instance, a Texas business opportunity contract must have certain information in ten point type, including: the terms of payment; a detailed description of the acts or services that the seller will perform for the purchaser; the seller’s principal business address; the name and address of the seller’s registered agent in Texas; the delivery date; and a description of the nature of the buy-back or security agreement, if there has been one represented by the seller. TEX. BUS. &amp; COM. CODE § 51.201.
The advertisement is simply an invitation to treat. The lease was the contract offer, and your signature and payment were acceptance of that offer. The advertisement doesn't bind either party (other than as prohibited by deceptive advertising statutes), and you are allowed to negotiate an offer that differs from the invitation to treat.
If you are prevented from entering the property on the day the contract says the tenancy begins that is a breach of the contract. If you suffer a loss as a result of the breach, you are entitled to be restored to the position you'd be in had the loss not occurred. For example, if you had additional removal fees and a hotel bill resulting from this breach, you'd be entitled to claim those costs. Generally the landlord would be liable for this. It is no defence that the agent is unavailable to give you the keys - they should have accounted for the day being a Sunday or started the term on a day when someone would be available. I suggest getting in touch with the landlord in the first instance, civilly explain the situation and ask if they can arrange for you to enter the property on the given date - they might not know what is going on. Keep a log/diary of your communications with the agent and the landlord. Make sure you have a plan B for somewhere to stay. Call Shelter too, for free advice.
Does this still count as consideration, even though there was never any possibility of B getting anything out of it? Yes. The sole fact that the promisee and the beneficiary are different and unrelated entities does not invalidate a contract. In terms of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts at § 302(1)(b), what matters is that "the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance".
It isn't uncommon to interlineate contract language, or to cross out contract language, with the initials of the parties to the contract. This is normally only done with smaller businesses, however, where there is someone who has the authority to do so. Some contracts, such as insurance contracts, for example, have to have their language approved by state regulators before they can be used and can't be modified in that fashion.
Most of your examples don't seem to be so much self-contradictory, as limited to a subset of the obvious meaning for purposes of a particular law. When a term has a specific meaning within a particular field or context, it is often called a "term of art". For example "Fair use" is a term of art in US Copyright law, and "Under color of law" is a term of art in US civil rights law. "Standing" is a term of art in most common-law jurisdictions. But a term of art is usually somewhat broadly understood, and is not limited to one particular law or section of law. I would just call such a thing a "specially defined term" or just say "Q as defined for purposes of the XYZ law".