Altera argued that the formulas should be applied exactly as shown in the work examples, resulting in a claim of approximately $12 million, plus interest on unpaid rent. The prime minister said Altera`s interpretation resulted in a result incompatible not only with the previous narrative, but also with the charter party`s other conditions and commercial common sense. The prime minister`s confidence in the narrative meant he had a $3 million counter-claim for rent, which he claimed he had paid too much. However, this power is in contradiction with the idea that the Constitution recognizes or sanctions the legality of slavery. Inconsistency means that two clauses cannot be read judiciously together and could effectively qualify each other. If the clauses deal differently with the same or a similar subject, they do not necessarily have to be inconsistent, so both can be used to interpret the document, which has unintended consequences. In Morris v Baron & Co  AC 1, Morris agreed to sell 500 copies of Blue Serge to Baron & Company on the terms set out in the written contract (and thus to meet the written requirements of section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 (UK), the parties continued and their actions were ultimately affected by an oral agreement, according to which the Baron & Company should be compensated for defective deliveries already made. freely accept other deliveries at its discretion and have time to pay for unpaid bills. .