Selling parts minor conflict in the rules

Sorry if this was brought up already, but I was looking at the rules thanks the annual "this can't be done" thread...

But there's a minor sales conflict in the rules here https://view.monday.com/6926752915-a8453491564eeecb98040697a27e71d5?r=use1

In the budget area, there are some confusing words....

Starting with the "Most important budget rules" there is this line:

Up to $2000 may be recouped by selling parts originally included with or attached to the Challenge car, related parts car(s), or related parts packages at the time of purchase.

And then under the finer details, there is this line:

You may recoup more than a part or car’s purchase price or fair market value (whichever value you listed on your budget sheet). Yes, that's correct: The per-item recoup limit has been removed for 2024 and beyond.

If you read it hard enough, they still kind of apply to each other, but it's also pretty confusing.  I kind of suggest that  you insert the limit "up to $2000" into the detail line.  Assuming that the higher than purchase price of car limit is still constrained by $2000.

I'm not challenging the rule what so ever, just making sure that the rule is clear.  Either way it is currently interpreted, I'm ok with it.  

I think "up to $2000" may be confusing.  Like can I buy a junk engine for $50, sell $2000 worth of parts, and keep a radiator hose clamp for the build?

Yes I can, but the additional wording you suggest would make me think that I could do that six or seven times and then have a five figure budget, while the original wording seems to just put a $2000 recoup cap on everything.

Its not confusing. You can recoup up to $2000, period. You can also recoup more than you paid for something. If I buy two $500 cars, sell $1000 of parts off each of them, I have maxed out my recoup ($2000 total) and now have a -$1000 Challenge budget.

...So uh...$1000 subclass is cool and all, but how about some negative budget cars? Bet no one else can do it

In reply to alfadriver :

I think it's reasonable to consider clarifying the language to simplify for alignment with the intent. 

I'll raise this with the team if it hasn't been addressed yet. 

- Bill C