Very strange Short Pay/Sale clause in banks agreement

[Greg K.]

Has anyone ever seen such a clause in a contract(approval letter with terms) for a hardship based Short Pay, or even for a Short Sale?)

"Dear Customer(s):

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS), the mortgage servicer on the above referenced account, received your request

to accept a compromised payoff from the proceeds of the refinance of the above referenced property, or “Short

Payoff.......

****

.1. SPS must receive the net proceeds from the Short Payoff in an amount not less than [redacted] no later

than [redacted] (the Closing Date). The net proceeds must be in the form of wired funds or certified

funds, and must be made payable to Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. No personal checks will be accepted.

Wiring funds is the preferred method of payment, and instructions are attached.....

***

3. In consideration for SPS’s agreement to accept the Short Payoff, in no event shall you receive any funds from

the Short Payoff (unless otherwise approved in advance by SPS). Any surplus funds above the agreed upon

net proceeds at the time of closing are the exclusive property of SPS, and you agree that any such funds will

be remitted to SPS, made payable to Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc........

***

...Provided that all terms and conditions set forth above have been satisfied, written confirmation that the payoff funds are in

Escrow along with a final HUD-1 Settlement Statement/Closing Disclosure shall remove all conditions of approval for

this Short Payoff. Upon satisfaction of all terms of this approval, the mortgage will be discharged in its entirety with any deficiency rights

waived, and a lien release document will be forwarded to the appropriate county for recording......

”

Am i crazy, or does this contract ,(The two sections that are underlined) in effect, contradict itself?  Verbally I told them I absolutely would like to profit from this, and they said no problem at all.  "We just want our $XXX,XXX".

I am NOT trying to solicit legal consul, and will not treat any response as such.  But my lawyer already said I need to make them change this contract.  And so far the reps have only said the exact opposite of what was promised(verbally) from the start.

Any advice?  Is the first underlined clause just a formality that never gets enforced?

A thousand thank you's for any ideas or insights!

Cheers.

-Greg