We agree with Appellant that the trial court’s final summary judgment must be reversed. At the very least, it is clear that in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are disputed issues of material fact concerning whether the provisions of the contract being litigated in this case are in conflict, and how such conflicts should be resolved.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

FLETCHER and SORONDO, JJ., concur.

(dissenting in part).

I too would reverse, but for entry of summary judgment on liability in favor of the appellant. In my view, the appellee landlord is liable as a matter of law under paragraph twelve of the lease for the damage to its tenant’s sets, props, and costumes caused when it activated its deluge sprinkler system.1 The fact stressed by the Concert Association that the sprinkler was, although at its direction, actually *1160turned on by an employee of another company, has no effect upon its own contractual liability for the damage in question. See Jaar v. University of Miami, 474 So.2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1986); Mills v. Krauss, 114 So.2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959), cert. denied, 119 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1960).