two-million dollar comma

[alexxkay]

For all the language wonks on my Friends list, another object lesson about the importance of punctuation:

Different interpretations of a comma end up costing a contractor 2.13 million dollars.

Comments

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

People who write laws, and contracts, need to understand the use of subordinate clauses, and phrases.

If you read the MGL it's full of this crap, to the point of being unintelligible. Sheesh. Still, that's a bit of a hit for stupid legalese. I wonder which poor intern who wrote the language will get fired? I wonder how long it'll be before contracts are written in HLML? (hypothetical lawyer markup language)

[freerange-snark.livejournal.com]

What I can't figure out is how the sentence would be punctuated differently to convey the meaning the losing party thought was intended. But then, I'm dangerously sleep-depped...

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Possibly break it up into separate sentences.

[freerange-snark.livejournal.com]

Now that I finally understand that what they meant was that the comma shouldn't be there at all (see my comment below), I can safely say that breaking it up into separate sentences is a better solution still. Thanks for the help -- not being able to figure that out was making me battier than usual.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

According to the article, not including the second comma would have done the trick. Separate sentences might have been clearer still.

[freerange-snark.livejournal.com]

Oooooooooooh, now I get it. Somehow it was just escaping me before. Yes, without the comma it does mean that any five-year term after the initial, not-get-out-of-able one, could be terminated with a year's notice. With the comma, anyone can terminate the contract at any time, so long as they warn the other party a year in advance.

Thankee, thankee. I couldn't figure out where the comma should go instead, but it just shouldn't be there at all. That was driving me bananas.

[londo.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I misunderstand it, but the ability to terminate at any time with one-year notice seems to render the five-year term totally irrelevant, and therefore is a suboptimal way to read the contract.

Of course, it's a suboptimal way to *write* it too.

[freerange-snark.livejournal.com]

Given my above-stated confusion, you should feel free to disregard this comment, but my guess is that the logic was that it's beneficial to both parties to have things locked up for five-year terms so as to have a relatively strong assurance the companies will continue to draw that revenue/have that service available for the next few years, but if something should radically change on, say, year two, neither party is forced to maintain a situation no longer in their best interests for more than a year. Basically, it's meant as a safety valve, rather than a bail-as-soon-as-fashions-change measure. Also: Damn, that first sentence was long. Sorry 'bout that. (I'm lazy. It's easier to apologize than rewrite.)

[londo.livejournal.com]

So, I agree with all of those statements, and if we were talking about elections and impeachment, I'd even agree with the conclusion. But given how fantastically low the curb is to give one-year notice, I don't see how it's functionally different from "this will continue until someone gives notice, and then last an additional year."

[freerange-snark.livejournal.com]

Can't really argue with you there. I think it's pretty clear the writers of the contract aren't the brightest legal minds of our time.