Per Steyn J in Pagnan SpA v Tradax Ocean Transportation SA  1 All ER 81 at p89:
The rationale of this [inconsistency] clause is obvious: in the event of inconsistency the typed words, specially selected by the parties to regulate their commercial dealings, ought to carry greater weight than a standard form provision, devised for the generality of cases involving users of the standard form. Indeed, even in the absence of such a provision, that would be the way in which a court would approach the matter in the event of a genuine inconsistency between contractual provisions.
Bingham LJ stated in Pagnan SpA v Tradax Ocean Transportation SA  3 All ER 565 at p.575:
It is not enough if one term qualifies or modifies the effect of another; to be inconsistent a term must contradict another term or be in conflict with it, such that effect cannot fairly be given to both clauses.