Ike
11/16/2006, 01:46 PM
behold the case of the million dollar comma.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6383383&ft=1&f=1004
The contract between cable company Rogers Communications and telephone company Bell Aliant allowed Rogers to use Bell Aliant's telephone poles. Bell Aliant sought to get out of the deal.
Canada's telecommunications regulator said the case hinged on the placement of the second comma in this clause:
"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 had insisted the contract was good for at least five years; Aliant said the comma denotes that the deal can be terminated at five years -- or before, as long as one year's notice is given.
The ruling commission said that the comma should have been omitted if the contract was meant to last five years in its shortest term.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6383383&ft=1&f=1004
The contract between cable company Rogers Communications and telephone company Bell Aliant allowed Rogers to use Bell Aliant's telephone poles. Bell Aliant sought to get out of the deal.
Canada's telecommunications regulator said the case hinged on the placement of the second comma in this clause:
"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 had insisted the contract was good for at least five years; Aliant said the comma denotes that the deal can be terminated at five years -- or before, as long as one year's notice is given.
The ruling commission said that the comma should have been omitted if the contract was meant to last five years in its shortest term.