The paper studies defeasible reasoning in rule-based systems, in particular about legal norms and contracts. We identify rule modifiers that specify how rules interact and how they can be overridden. We then define rule transformations that eliminate these modifiers, leading in the end to a translation of rules to formulas. For reasoning with and about rules, we contrast two approaches, one in a classical logic with SMT solvers as proof engines, one in a non-monotonic logic with Answer Set Programming solvers.