I have a slightly odd situation with regards to my contractual notice period that I'd like to garner people's opinions on (educated or not). The notice clause in my contract is: Now, the pedants amongst you will have instantly noticed that the clause contradicts itself. If you follow the wording for, say, 4 complete years of service: One month until you have been continuously employed for two years Thereafter, notification entitlement increases by one week for each year of continuous employment Therefore for 4 years employment, notice = One month + two weeks However, it goes on to say that entitlement increases until you have completed 12 years of service, by which point your notice period is 12 weeks. That final condition doesn't fit at all with the rest of the clause. The initial entitlement of one month for two years is never revoked or converted to weeks, and the notice period specifically increases after that point. Now, many of you will also know that the final condition is very similar to the statutory terms. The company have argued that the clause had intended to mirror the statutory terms but was worded incorrectly (I of course didn't agree). The company have now offered to give 6 weeks notice. This is 0.33r weeks less notice than I feel I am entitled to. Is it worth arguing over this contractual clause for the sake of a third of a weeks' pay? Does anyone have any experience with contradictory contract clauses? Am I best off taking the offer? Over to you OcUK!