If a second contract is signed after a prior one and they fully conflict going against fully being each other and there is no mention done of which contract mainly overrides being the other then in the given being situation which given prevails actually?
Content before last given editm :
Let us say A and Z sign two contracts. The first contract says that A will pay Z $0.5 to $1 a month. There is no mention of what happens if another contract is signed opposing its terms. Later A and Z sign a contract stating $0.2 will be paid to Z per month and nothing more. There is no mention of the first contract in this one. Which of the two contracts will prevail over the other?
Questions like these are almost always resolved in a factual context rich manner and can't really be answered accurately in the abstract.
Commented Dec 8, 2020 at 0:20Do not edit to cut off last given part as it is used as referece in begining answer and the commrent.
Commented Dec 30, 2020 at 19:47Do newer contracts superceed prior ones?
It depends on whether the contracts conflict with each other. That is why many contracts contain language akin to "This contract supersedes and replaces any previous or contemporaneous agreements between the parties". The parties would need to adapt such clause if the contracts are compatible and they intend to maintain them.
I have seen many contracts saying tgis "this will happens unless agreed in writing to do something else".However many contracts do not have this in written.
The main purpose of that language is to specify that any amendments to the contract shall be in writing. That precaution makes it easier to ascertain whose version of the contract is binding, such as where party A alleges an oral amendment and party B denies that such amendment was agreed upon.
Your outline of the agreements between A and Z is incomplete. At the outset, the contracts are not necessarily incompatible:
Therefore, the matter of superseding contracts depends on various factors.