contract grammar interpretation
Walter Roberson
use. I do not know how to parse one of the clauses of the contract,
and would appreciate some advice as to what the standard legal
interpretation would be.
The clause in question is of the form,
You may not ADVERB VERB1 COMMA VERB2 COMMA VERB3 or VERB4 ADJECTIVE1
COMMA ADJECTIVE2 or ADJECTIVE3 NOUN.
My question would be whether ADVERB "distributes" across to modify
each of the VERBs or whether the ADVERB modifies only VERB1.
For example, if the phrase were
You may not quickly run, jump, hop or skip [...]
then would the 'quickly' apply only to 'run' or would it apply
to 'jump', 'hop', and 'skip' as well?
In either case, the contract would permit me to VERB1 the objects as
long as I wasn't ADVERBally doing so. If ADVERB does NOT distribute
across and only modifies VERB1, then I could not VERB2 or VERB3 or
VERB4 the objects in any way whatsoever -- whereas if ADVERB does
distribute across, then I -would- be allowed to VERB2 or VERB3 or
VERB4 the objects as long as I wasn't doing so ADVERBally.
I know that's somewhat abstract, but look back at the example phrase
above: it has no prohibition about -slowly- running, just about
-quickly- running. But with this construct, would I not be allowed to
jump, hop, or skip at all, or would I just not be allowed to quickly
jump, quickly hop, and quickly skip ?
My own analysis, from the viewpoint of someone who is not a lawyer,
is that the service provider could not "have it both ways".
The ADJECTIVE1 COMMA ADJECTIVE2 or ADJECTIVE3 NOUN form is clearly
intended to have NOUN distribute back to ADJECTIVE1, ADJECTIVE2, and
ADJECTIVE3, because it makes no grammatical sense to ADJECTIVE anything
in isolation. For example, if the end of the clause was talking about
"torn or withered or crumpled flowers", then "torn flowers" makes
sense, and "withered flowers" makes sense, and "crumpled flowers" makes
sense, but "torn" in isolation (without distribution of the noun) does
not make sense.
We have thus established that in the case of
ADJECTIVE1 COMMA ADJECTIVE2 or ADJECTIVE3 NOUN
that where they have a comma seperated list and a word adjacent to
the list, that the list items are all individually to be conjoined
with the word in order to arrive at the intended meaning.
I would thence say that the same implicit distribution
must apply to the earlier portion of the clause, that ADVERB
being a word adjacent to a comma separated list, that the intended
meaning must be to have the ADVERB conjoined with each word of the list,
instead of having the ADVERB modify only the first word of the list.
To find otherwise would mean that they had changed grammatical
interpretations in mid clause -- and if they are allowed to do -that-,
then how is anyone to know what any similar constructs in the contract
are intended to mean?
In the case I am looking at, the ADVERB is "unlawfully", and the VERBs
are various forms of communicating. If the ADVERB distributes, then the
contract would allow me those forms of communication as long as I
stayed within the bounds of the law; whereas if the ADVERB does *not*
distribute, then I would be blocked from those forms of communication
entirely. I would have no objection to the contract clause if the
"unlawfully" applies to each of the forms in turn, but I would not agree
to refrain from -lawfully- employing those forms of communications.
Walter Roberson
Walter Roberson <robe...@mts.net> wrote:
:I (a consumer) am reading a contract for a service I might wish to
:use. I do not know how to parse one of the clauses of the contract,
:The clause in question is of the form,
: You may not ADVERB VERB1 COMMA VERB2 COMMA VERB3 or VERB4 ADJECTIVE1
: COMMA ADJECTIVE2 or ADJECTIVE3 NOUN.
:My question would be whether ADVERB "distributes" across to modify
:each of the VERBs or whether the ADVERB modifies only VERB1.
Following up: as people seem to be too busy arguing about minutae of
trailer hitch laws to write about contractual constructs, I called
the company and asked them how -they- interpreted the clause.
Their answer was that they intended the ADVERB to distribute across
the VERBs, which was the interpretation that was favourable to me.