Why did the contract writer use both provision and term?
<p>This is a provision in  CONTRACT FOR THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL
SALE OF GOODS</p>
<ol start="12">
<li>Effects of avoidance in general</li>
</ol>
<p>12.1 Avoidance of this contract releases both parties from their obligation to
effect and to receive future performance, subject to any damages that may be
due.</p>
<p>12.2 Avoidance of this contract does not preclude a claim for damages for
non-performance.</p>
<p>12.3 Avoidance of this contract does not affect any <strong>provision</strong> in this contract
for the settlement of disputes or any other <strong>term</strong> of this contract that is to
operate even after avoidance.</p>
<p>I cannot get why the writer used &quot;provision&quot; and &quot;term&quot; at the same time here. I thought in contracts, we'd have to use only one word throughout the whole thing to avoid misunderstandings</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Why did the contract writer use both provision and term?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Generally speaking, the usage of either or both terms is inconsequential. It does not alter the meaning of the contract.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I thought in contracts, we'd have to use only one word throughout the whole thing to avoid misunderstandings</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no rule, requirement, or habit to that effect. A contract can be clear despite using synonyms. Conversely, sticking to only one term in the entire contract does not preclude flaws or ambiguities in the semantics.</p>

contract-law international legal-terms sale-of-goods