Misplaced comma could cost company millions

I agree with the regulators' interpretation of the sentence. Lesson: don't sign a contract unless your reading comprehension is excellent.

comma

I'm not sure this would stand up is a U.S. court, since intent of contract law is often as important as the letter of contract law, but it shows why all conditions in a contract should be spelled out twice, and in a different manner each time.

In court, a U.S. court, it would depend on who wrote the contract, and what boths sides believed the contract meant at the time of signing, but commas really are that important.

can we say "ouch"????????? I agree with James, it would seem to me that here in the states this ruling might not fly.

LA

The CRTC isn't a court. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is an independent agency responsible for regulating Canada's broadcasting and telecommunications systems. They report to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

I wonder if Roger's can take the issue to court. I would think the intent of the contract is more important than a misplaced comma, but that's just me. I wouldn't count on getting any sense out of a Canadian judge either.

I'd guess that the two parties originally had opposite intents for the meaning of that sentence.