Weird transaction order in blockchain

[sipak]

I have found weird transaction formation at address https://blockchain.info/address/16peP4A3ybiLspV4t3iHjd97DSNEJiKFR9, which I really dont understand based on what I know about the transaction rules:

A) 13:15 - incoming transaction 0,00061245 BTC (confirmed in block at 13:17)
B) 13:45 - incoming transaction 0,00053198 BTC (confirmed in block at 13:45)
C) 15:10 - outgoing transaction 0,00053198 BTC (confirmed in block at 0:26 next day)
D) 21:18 - outgoing transaction 0,00061245 BTC (confirmed in block at 21:19)

As I understand it the wallet balance after 13:45 should be 0,00114443 BTC, so any spending transaction after that time should empty whole wallet. And not just 0,0005... or 0,0006...
And what is the actual order of transactions?

A-B-C-D based on blockchain receiving time,
A-B-D-C based on the block time or
A-D-B-C based on logic

Any idea?
 
http://s24.postimg.org/jk8fgjbl1/trns.jpg

[1714645756]

1714645756

[1714645756]

1714645756

[1714645756]

1714645756

[il--ya]

Very strange indeed..
I'll add more context here about transaction order:

ce51ec94abdb5814336fb55aa54b8c6c8c549f608899100ce21d462ad9f9b312
Received Time    2014-01-30 21:18:26
Included In Blocks    283263 (2014-01-30 21:19:36 +1 minutes)

7387ddf31c873856ee711c3937ee923f57b274ee8f4017155afea84aa0dc8dd7
Received Time    2014-01-30 15:10:10
Included In Blocks    283287 (2014-01-31 00:26:02 +556 minutes)

646ff2b51dab5b12795be23c391d103e2fd8786823700855d0d57c52141e5834
Received Time    2014-01-30 13:45:13
Included In Blocks    283203 (2014-01-30 13:45:43 +0 minutes)

51fd1a3bd6baf6e74504b2f5ebdc199104b3dc14b66ac6cc0306f8ba92917bfe
Received Time    2014-01-30 13:15:13
Included In Blocks    283196 (2014-01-30 13:17:59 +3 minutes)

Update:
Nothing strange about the two separate transactions - they were spending two different outputs of previous transactions. But the ordering is weird..

Update2
Nothing strange about the order either. Transaction 7387ddf31c873856ee711c3937ee923f57b274ee8f4017155afea84aa0dc8dd7 was received by the network on 2014-01-30 15:10:10, but it had no fees attached and was a bit clunky. So miner decided not to include it in the next block. Only 9 hours later it was included in the block 283287. By that time another transaction from the same address of similar size but with fees attached was already received and included in earlier block. But that's normal. Miners are free to decide which transactions to include into blocks.

[sipak]

Ok. I got it now. I thought the whole address (all unspent outputs) has to be emptied each time there is spending transaction. This is not the case, since what has to be spent as a whole is just single unspent output. That's it.

[DannyHamilton]

And what is the actual order of transactions?

The blocks determine the order of the transactions.  This is the purpose of the blocks.  It doesn't matter when a transaction was broadcast, or when it was received.  Until a transaction is confirmed into a block, it doesn't have an "order", and once it is confirmed in a block, that block determines the order of the transactions.