Contradictory terms in a contract
<p>I'm working on a master supply agreement sent through by a customer. There is a section which seems to contradict.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>11.2 Suspension</p>
<ul>
<li>(c) In the event of a suspension under Clause 11.2(a) or Clause 11.2(b), the Supplier may claim an extension of time pursuant and subject to the provisions of Clause 4.6(a) and shall be entitled to claim reimbursement of its reasonable documented costs incurred as a direct result of the suspension.</li>
</ul>
<p>...</p>
<ul>
<li>(e) The Supplier undertakes the risk of and is not entitled in contract or otherwise at law to any additional payment or compensation for any Losses suffered by the Supplier as a result of a suspension of Supply Services, except as provided in this Clause 11.2.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>(c) implies the supplier can claim reimbursement but (e) states that supplier is not entitled to an additional payment or losses.... Both clauses are in 11.2 therefore, both are relevant yet seemingly contradictory.</p>
<p>I've seen this type of thing before and normally a common sense approach can be applied but this one has me confused. Thoughts anyone?</p>

<h2>… except as provided in this Clause 11.2.</h2>
<p>I don’t see a contradiction.</p>

<p>What this is intended to do is limit remedies solely to &quot;reasonable documented costs incurred as a direct result of the suspension&quot; and not to broader measures of &quot;consequential damages&quot; less directly caused by the suspension such as lost profits, opportunities forgone when the contract was entered into that could have been possible but for the suspended contract work, etc.</p>

contract-law