There is no finding that there was any former transaction between the parties except the finding that “on each occasion on which Rogers had purchased rubber for the defendant prior to April 4th, 1910, he had done so on special order from the defendant.” The fact that Rogers had on a former occasion purchased rubber on “special order from the defendant” could not serve to show that the acknowledgment and acceptance of the defendant’s offer was unnecessary in view of the fact that the defendant had expressly annexed that condition to its offer. Moreover it appears from the record that the trial justice expressly excluded proof of the former transaction which was said to have taken place between the parties. The view of the trial justice that the printed matter was not intended to be a part of the contract rests upon his inference as to the intention of the parties. This intention is inferred from the conflict between the words printed at the beginning of the order, which calls for delivery “at once,” and the written words, which require delivery to be made in the future. This conflict between the written and printed requirements as to the date of delivery does not serve to nullify the other printed provisions of the order. When repugnancy exists between written and printed clauses of an instrument that which is written will prevail over that which is printed, but because there was a conflict between the printed and written clauses as to the date of delivery it does not follow that all the other printed clauses of the contract which are in no way repugnant to the other clauses in the contract, whether written or printed, are to be disregarded.