Some things just make me happy...

[Rei]

Comma Woes

It began as an arcane legal dispute between two Canadian companies, but a fight between Rogers Communications Inc. and Aliant Inc. over the placement of a comma in a multimillion-dollar contract has ignited an international debate over the importance of language.

After a long period of deliberation, Canada's telecom regulator is expected to rule on the case in the next few months. When it does, an array of business experts, law schools and language specialists from around the world will be watching the outcome closely.

The comma quarrel — which threatens to cost Rogers at least $1-million because of a simple grammatical issue in the contract — has been called an English teacher's delight, reinforcing the value of basic punctuation and grammar in the business and legal worlds.

It just goes to show that you that grammar is actually important

[luminousnerd]

Oh god that's satisfying.

[Bevis]

Lumi, you're funny.

[Mahatma]

*does a comma dance*

*gives everyone involved copies of Eats, Shoots and Leaves*

*worships Lynne Truss*

[fawkes]

I need to show this to my english teachers.

[Rei]

Woo! Eats, Shoots and Leaves for everyone!

[Qing_Jao]

At the heart of the issue was a single sentence in the contract, which read: “This agreement shall be effective from the date it is made and shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”

So, which side is right? Because that phrase is enclosed in commas, does that mean the "termination" applies to the first term as well as to any subsequent terms? And should the French copy come into play as proof of the intent?

I'm just curious what you think.

[fawkes]

Woo! Eats, Shoots and Leaves for everyone!

Yay! I heard the worst incarnation of that joke involving a panda and a different usage of the word shoots that I will not repeat here for the sake of the children

[Rei]

Aliant is technically in the right. However, they lose big points in the realm of ethics because that is a cheap move.

You would think that the French copy would be equally valid as it is the other second language, however a discrepancy between the two of them might just void the contract altogether for all I know. We need to call in our Hegemon to see if he can enlighten us on the law aspects of this and what to do if there is a discrepency between two copies of the same contract.