Short answer. The written portion controls. Rule 130, Section 16 provides that when an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and the two are inconsistent, the written words control the printed form. Handwritten or typed-in terms take priority over conflicting pre-printed language.
What the law says
When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form
Rule 130, Section 16 — Written words control printed. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the former controls the latter.
Rule 130, Section 16 — Written words control printed. Read the full provision →
A common scenario: templates plus custom terms
Many instruments combine a standardized printed form — boilerplate contract language, for instance — with words specifically written or filled in by the parties for that particular transaction. Section 16 addresses what happens when those two components do not say the same thing. Real estate leases, loan agreements, and other standard-form contracts frequently combine boilerplate printed text with blanks filled in or added by hand for the specific deal. A handwritten rider inserting a special payment schedule, or a typed-in clause changing a standard term, are common examples of exactly the kind of written addition this rule contemplates.
Written words win over printed form
The rule is direct: where the written portion and the printed portion are inconsistent, the written words control the printed form. This reflects that the party-specific written terms more likely represent what the parties actually and deliberately agreed to for their particular transaction than generic pre-printed boilerplate does. This default can be displaced only where other evidence clearly shows the parties intended the printed language to control despite the apparent inconsistency. The rule speaks to how the instrument is read once its meaning is genuinely in dispute; it does not itself decide whether an added term is enforceable in the first place, so questions like whether the handwritten addition was properly signed or initialed by both parties are governed by other rules on contract formation, not by this interpretive default.
Why this default makes sense
A pre-printed form exists before any particular deal is struck and often was not drafted with the specific parties' actual arrangement in mind. Words that a party wrote in, by contrast, were added specifically for that agreement — making them the more reliable evidence of the parties' actual, considered intent where the two conflict. Recognizing this default helps parties understand, before a dispute arises, which portion of a mixed instrument is likely to prevail if the two portions genuinely conflict. It also gives contracting parties a practical drafting lesson: if a printed template does not reflect what was actually agreed, the safer course is to cross out or revise the conflicting printed text rather than simply add a handwritten term and hope it controls.
What this rule does not decide
This rule binds courts construing the instrument once a dispute over its meaning has already arisen; it is an interpretive tool for resolving an apparent conflict, not a warning that automatically invalidates the printed form or excuses either party from obligations the printed language otherwise imposes wherever no inconsistency actually exists. It also does not resolve a conflict between two written insertions, or between two competing printed clauses — Section 16 speaks only to the specific mismatch between a written portion and a printed form, leaving other kinds of internal conflict to be worked out under ordinary rules of contract interpretation.