may I mercifully pose an inquiry on an authoritative case. In the issue set of an unsettled, all questions and contentions were about break of an inferred term

Howdy, may I mercifully pose an inquiry on an authoritative case. In the issue set of an unsettled, all questions and contentions were about break of an inferred term (an article of CISG on Actual Knowledge and Gross Negligence). Notwithstanding, in the agreement in thought, there is a comparable express term with Best Knowledge qualifier in the guarantees segment (for example Real Knowledge and Gross Negligence). As express terms for the most part overshadow inferred terms and there is no inconsistency for this situation, I am simply asking why the opposition doesn't expect understudies to examine about the break of the express term, which is a superior contention? Much obliged without question.