A comma that costs C$1 million

1 view

Skip to first unread message

Chin-Huat Wong

unread,

Oct 29, 2006, 3:54:28 AM10/29/06

to media...@googlegroups.com

Now you see why you need to understand laws better.

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,116360,00.html?

A comma that costs $1.4m
October 28, 2006

THIS is an English teacher's dream case study on why grammar is important.

One company in Canada learnt this lesson the hard way, to the tune of C$1
million ($1.4m), reported The New York Times.

In February last year, telephone company Bell Aliant wanted to cancel a
five-year contract - which allowed cable TV provider Rogers Communications
to use the telephone poles Aliant managed in New Brunswick province - one
year before it expired.

This is because the local power company which owns the poles is taking over
their control.

Rogers resisted because the power company planned to 'really crank up
rates', said Mr Kenneth Engelhart, Rogers' vice-president of regulatory
affairs.

That change would cost Rogers about C$1m in that final year.

But the Canadian telecommunications regulator ruled that Aliant could end
its agreement with Rogers at any time with notice - because of a comma.

In the standard 14-page contract is a sentence which reads:

'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.'

Rogers argued that pole contracts run for five years and are automatically
renewed for another five years unless a telephone company cancels the
agreement before the start of the final year.

But, citing the 'rules of punctuation', the regulator concluded that the
second comma meant that the part of the sentence describing the one-year
notice for cancellation applied to both the five-year term and its renewal.

'The meaning of the clause was clear and unambiguous,' the regulator wrote
in a ruling in July.

But Mr Engelhart disagreed.

'Why they feel that a comma should somehow overrule the plain meaning of the
words is beyond me,' he said, while acknowledging that his company lawyers
might have underestimated the regulator's interest in grammar.

The French and English versions of the contracts on the use of utility poles
were approved by a government regulator about six years ago.

To appeal the ruling, Rogers has turned to the French version of the
contract, which has equal status under Canadian law.

'It becomes very clear once you read the French version,' Mr Engelhart said.

Rogers has also commissioned a 69-page affidavit, mostly about commas, from
Mr Kenneth Adams, a lawyer who is the author of two books on contract
language.

----------------------------------------------------------
The Berita Malaysia / bmalaysia mailing lists
============================================
Read postings, subscribe/unsubscribe or change settings at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beritamalaysia
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bmalaysia

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Database | Members

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

Visit Your Group