That second comma is worth over $1,000,000 CA, because IMO it allows the early termination (with one year notice) in both the first 5 year period, as well as subsequent 5 year periods.Originally Posted by Rogers/Aliant Contract“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.”
Another aspect of this story is the fact that the contract was also written in French and, as one might expect, is worded 'differently', so the Canadian court that ends up hearing this case will be in the dubious position of choosing one official language over another.
Originally Posted by Globe and MailSource
Grammarians take heed of telecomma dispute
GRANT ROBERTSON AND BEPPI CROSARIOL , Globe and Mail Update
It began as an arcane legal dispute between two Canadian companies, but a fight between Rogers Communications Inc. and Aliant Inc. over the placement of a comma in a multimillion-dollar contract has ignited an international debate over the importance of language.
After a long period of deliberation, Canada's telecom regulator is expected to rule on the case in the next few months. When it does, an array of business experts, law schools and language specialists from around the world will be watching the outcome closely.
The comma quarrel — which threatens to cost Rogers at least $1-million because of a simple grammatical issue in the contract — has been called an English teacher's delight, reinforcing the value of basic punctuation and grammar in the business and legal worlds.
Dozens of universities have flagged the case as a cautionary tale for business and law students, while language specialists from across Europe and North America are now weighing in with arguments and advice in the dispute.
“The phone has been ringing quite a lot. We've had tons of people calling us who want to argue the case for us,” said Daniel Campbell, a lawyer for Aliant.
The dispute, which surfaced this summer, stems from a contract Rogers signed in 2002 to string cable lines across telephone poles in the Maritimes. Rogers thought it had an unbreakable, five-year deal with Aliant, which administered the poles.
But a few years into the arrangement, Aliant informed Rogers the contract was being cancelled, and its rates for the use of the poles were being increased by a sum that would turn out to be worth more than $1-million.
At the heart of the issue was a single sentence in the contract, which read: “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.”
That sentence has since been e-mailed around the world as academics, legal experts, newspapers, radio commentators and students argue over the true intent of the words. Aliant argues the second comma allows it to scrap the 14-page contract, since the termination applied to both the first five years and the subsequent five-year periods.
After parsing the words — and calling upon grammar specialists of its own — the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) agreed with Aliant. Rogers was incensed, insisting that neither company signed the contract with the intent of cancelling in the first five years.
Rogers has subsequently marshalled its own experts, including New York contract lawyer and legal syntax guru Kenneth Adams, who produced a hefty, 69-page affidavit. Rogers has also dug up a French version of the contract, where the sentences are structured differently, to argue its case.
The CRTC must now determine whether one of Canada's official languages should take precedence over the other in such a dispute. One insider at the CRTC said the case is by far one of the most unusual disagreements the commission has dealt with in decades.
While the comma battle may seem farcical or absurd, academics say it is no laughing matter.
When McGill law professor Richard Janda was invited on public radio in the U.S. recently to discuss the case, he said the comma dispute should be heeded beyond Canada's borders. “I've been warning students [in Canada] with it,” Mr. Janda told NPR. “So I'm happy to have that warning sent across the border.”
University of Toronto law professor Peter Ruby added the case to his curriculum in September then returned to the subject for a lecture in October when Rogers raised the language debate in its appeal of the first CRTC ruling.
Speaking to a conference of energy companies in the U.S. recently, Mr. Ruby asked a room full of executives to voice their opinion on the sentence. The results indicated how divisive the comma debate has become: “I had the audience vote ... Half voted one way, and half voted the other way,” Mr. Ruby said.
Should Rogers lose its appeal to the CRTC, the telecomma — as it's been dubbed in Canadian legal circles — will be going to court. Consumers have questioned whether Rogers' customers could be left footing the million-dollar bill if the company is unsuccessful. But Rogers lawyer Ken Englehart said the money would be added to the company's operating costs. “Essentially, we would have to eat this money,” Mr. Englehart said.