Why did the contract writer use both provision and term?

Question

This is a provision in CONTRACT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL SALE OF GOODS

12. Effects of avoidance in general

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.

12.2 Avoidance of this contract does not preclude a claim for damages for non-performance.

12.3 Avoidance of this contract does not affect any provision in this contract for the settlement of disputes or any other term of this contract that is to operate even after avoidance.

I cannot get why the writer used "provision" and "term" at the same time here. I thought in contracts, we'd have to use only one word throughout the whole thing to avoid misunderstandings

Answer 1

Why did the contract writer use both provision and term?

Generally speaking, the usage of either or both terms is inconsequential. It does not alter the meaning of the contract.

I thought in contracts, we'd have to use only one word throughout the whole thing to avoid misunderstandings

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.