One comma cost of contract writing seems quite petty. Yet, this is a problem when lawyers use adverb-verb babble to write contracts. Like using an additional comma which creates a million-dollar lawsuit.

Here’s an example of how Correct-Sentence-Structure-Communication-Parse-Syntax-Grammar-Performance puts an end to nonsense arguments.

Contracting Commotion: The Million-Dollar Comma

Back in 2002, Rogers Communications Inc., a major player in Canadian telecommunications, inked a deal with Aliant Inc. (now known as Bell Aliant Regional Communications).

So what’s in the fancy-pants adverb-verb babble agreement?

Aliant allows Rogers to run its cable lines across approximately 91,000 utility poles in the Maritimes. And for that service Rogers pay an annual fee of $9.60 per pole. Seems straightforward, right? Not quite.

Fast forward to early 2005, and Aliant drops a bombshell. The contract is being terminated, with a side of rate hike. Rogers, understandably, isn’t thrilled. They argue that the contract stands until spring 2007.

Here’s where it gets interesting, through a miscommunication.

Rogers feel hoodwinked. They claim they wouldn’t have signed on the dotted line if they knew the plug could be pulled so abruptly.

Their legal team get out the magnifying glass to study the small-print. They insist that the original intent of the agreement still stand. But alas, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) doesn’t see it their way.

And now, Rogers faces shelling out approximately $2.13 million more than they bargained for.

So, what’s the bone of contention?

One  Comma Cost

Yes, you read that right. One tiny punctuation mark turns into a multi-million-dollar headache. The contentious sentence reads,

“shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five-year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”

The CRTC rules in Aliant’s favor, arguing that, based on the punctuation, the contract could be terminated at any time with just one year’s notice.

Understandably, Rogers are not happy with that decision. So they bring in the big guns, namely Kenneth A. Adams, a contract language guru hailing from Garden City, N.Y. Ken Adams is the author of two seminal books on the subject, and isn’t shy about weighing in. To bolster its appeal,

Rogers commissions Adams to write a 69-page affidavit, mostly about commas, with a bunch of exhibits as evidence. Adams contests the CRTC’s interpretation, citing what he calls “the rule of the last antecedent.”

In Adams’ version, he claims clarity reigns supreme:
“The initial term of this agreement ends at midnight at the beginning of the fifth anniversary of the date of this agreement.
The term of this agreement (consisting of the initial term and any extensions in accordance with this section 12) will automatically be extended by consecutive five-year terms unless no later than one year before the beginning of any such extension either party notifies the other in writing that it does not wish to extend this agreement.”

And there you have it—a cautionary tale of contractual chaos, where a misplaced comma cost millions.

Study Lawyers’ Contracts

Here’s another critical point about these lawyers’ contracts.They create problems because they fail to follow simple grammar rules. One subject, one tense, per sentence.

Have a look at the expert’s second sentence. It’s 56 words long. And notice how many subjects, and how many tenses there are.

When Adams takes the time to study Correct-Sentence-Structure-Communication-Parse-Syntax-Grammar-Performance he’ll quickly put an end to nonsense arguments.

And people say punctuation isn’t important?

Get started here, and you’ll soon be writing wriggle-proof water-tight contracts, but adverb-verb lawyers out of business.