So prevail gets my vote, but I could change my mind. (When I first posted this, I decided to control it, but I quickly changed my Mark Anderson comment.) In the examples above, the chords are so similar that the word change seems intentional. It is not that they are totally different agreements; It is clear that someone started the foreign version and edited it to align with its jurisdiction. This raises the question: What is the meaning of word choice? I could not find articles on whether « control, » « prevail » or « governance » should be used to resolve conflicting notions. I had a partner in China who asked to change « prevail » to « Control » when negotiating the contract. It suggested to me that the partner thought there had been a legal difference, but I did not have the opportunity to ask. It is interesting to note that people seem to have strong opinions about the words to use in this context. I can`t commit to it too much. Here are my thoughts on the alternatives mentioned above, plus another popular option, to govern: I also noticed that between an American and European version of one of the Amazon agreements (which are very similar to each other), the US version uses « controls » and the European version uses « prevails ». (c) Notwithstanding subsection b, no contract is entered into if one party has received the following request: Here is another, the terms of the Google application in Ireland say « have priority, » and the corresponding U.S. terms say « control. » intends, in advance, expressly or by standard contractual terms, not to be bound by a contract on the basis of the subsection (b); or Here are the contrasting provisions of Amazon and Google (highlighting):.