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

[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.