Punctuation matters, as you’ll discover in the Rogers and Aliant “Comma” court case. This dispute refers to a legal case involving a telecommunications contract dispute between Rogers Communications and Bell Aliant (now part of Bell Canada). The dispute centres around the interpretation of a comma in a contract clause, specifically related to the termination provisions.

In 2006, Rogers seeks to terminate a service agreement with Aliant (now part of Bell Canada), citing the termination clause in the contract. However, Aliant argues that the contract allowsfor termination only in certain circumstances, which do not apply to Rogers’ situation. The disagreement arises from the interpretation of a comma in the termination provision.

The case goes to court, and in 2007, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rules in favor of Aliant. The reason being that the contract’s language, including the placement of the comma, indicates that termination is only allowed in specific circumstances.

The court’s decision highlights the importance of precise language and the interpretation of contract clauses in legal disputes.

The outcome of the Rogers and Aliant dispute sets a significant legal precedent in contract law. Because it emphases the importance of careful drafting and interpretation of contract language, including punctuation marks such as commas.

Yet lawyers still write in adverb-verb babble, and no contracts contain any facts, as DWM proves with his quantum grammar technology. And Punctuation matters.

If you’re in a hurry, and don’t want to wade through the 100 plus pages on this website, you can get a solid foundation of writing correct contracts, with our 7-day quickstart program, here.