Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Comma quirk irks Rogers

GRANT ROBERTSON

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 5:54 PM EDT 07/08/06

Misplaced comma costs Rogers a five-year deal and an extra $2.1-million ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. cam janssen from Victoria, Canada writes: See, this is why people hate lawyers....
  2. gord winters from victoria, Canada writes: good lawyers are hard to find.
  3. G Barclay from Canada writes: And they say that soon-to-be English Grads like myself are going to have troubles finding jobs! Bah! Here's a case-in-point of exactly why you need us! Duh Rogers! I'm going to have to read over my cable agreement, see if I can squirm out of this stupidly large bill I get every month.
  4. Scot Affleck from Canada writes: I hope they didn't use no double negatives. I don't use them no more neither. Ah, the English language, aint it great? How about the contract in French? What did it say? They did have a contract in French, didn't they? This is Canada, ya know.
  5. Scot Affleck from Prince George B.C., Canada writes: Good grammar trumps 'intent'. Now I know I didn't waste my life taking English classes in high school. I'm smilin'.
  6. S Foley from Ottawa, Canada writes: Reading the sentence I came to the same conclusion as Aliant regarding the meaning. The sentence clearly states that the contract can be terminated. Rogers does not have a leg to stand on. When an agreement is signed, what is written in the contract is what constitutes the agreement.
  7. Old Fart from edmonton, Canada writes: The contract was probably written by one of today's legal morons that doesn't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're' or between 'its' and 'it's'.
  8. Leanne Ridley from Maple Ridge, B.C., Canada writes: This is not the fault of lawyers, but rather the fault of the people who didn't read the contract correctly before they signed it! Aliant's interpretation of the clause is absolutely correct. This is a very expensive lesson to Rogers on the importance of correct grammar, and of proofreading legal documents before signing them.
  9. Trevor Marshall from The Junction, Toronto, Canada writes: Otherwise what is the point of legalese.
  10. Ice Ko from Vancouver, Canada writes: I'd like to applaud. However, this is just one battle in a broader language standards war that is being waged in our schools and media every day, and was only fought seriously this time because big bucks were at stake. When it comes to the spoken word, you can even get to hear vital young reporters on the airwaves pronouncing 'porpoise' as 'por-poys', and 'Koizumi' as 'kozy-mozy'. Let's hope, however, that the nanny CRTC doesn't begin a closer vetting of such sloppy speaking. It's often a lot funnier than what's on the Comedy Network.
  11. Geoff Wilson from Revelstoke, Canada writes: Great work lawyers! How would society function without them? I can see that Canada is on its way to becoming a great and efficient society. There's a lesson in this: stick to short sentences. Do not use commas unless absolutely needed. Inadvertent parenthetical statements are a curse for reasons which are all too apparent to Ted Rogers at this point.
  12. Daniel Sturgis from Rabat, Morocco writes: Very clever Alliant. You pulled the wool over Rogers eyes. Celebrate the victory with a glass of champagne then scratch your heads as to why no other company in Canada wants to do business with you anymore. Sometimes it's actually good to bite the bullet and fulfill an intended contract.
  13. Raymond Baden from Calgary, Canada writes: Ha! Constantly you raised my bills, constantly you forced me to pay through the nose for reasons that were explained poorly at the beginning of my contract. And lastly, /constantly/ you took every opportunity possible to have me pay the most amount of money using loopholes(like forcing me to get an entirely new contract because I lost my old cell and had to buy a new one, a fact the vendor conveniently forgot to stress). And now you guys have to pay through the nose because of a technicality? Thank you Lord, thank you! Victory -IS- mine!
  14. K. O'Brien from Kingston, Canada writes: OK which law firm?
  15. Peter S from Toronto, Canada writes: This is fabulous. Punctuation and grammar serve to clarify and codify language to avoid misinterpretation. Too often people are ignorant or can't be bothered to speak and write properly. When I read the quote from the deal, it obviously stated that the contract could be cancelled at anytime with one year notice.
  16. Hugh Phillips from Boucherville QC, Canada writes: I teach at a business school. We hammer into students the need to use short sentences to achieve clarity. I will use this as a case study.
  17. G. Sam from Stratford%252C%2520PEI, Canada writes: Re: GW from Victoria - 'Good Lawyers' are mutually exclusive words!
  18. W.A. Darnell from NS, Canada writes: Is it any wonder that consumers lack trust and respect for the overstuffed egos pretending to manage the corporate world? What goes around, comes around...
  19. Kristian Milec from Windsor, Canada writes: So, Rogers should have indicated that the terminiation clause only applied to the second or later five year term; not from the moment the contract was entered. Sloppy sentence construction was the problem, not a misplaced comma. The real victims here are the consumers in that area; and the shareholders of the respective companies. The consumers are the ones for whom Rogers will pass the increased cable rates on to because of the increased pole rental fees. The shareholders are the ones for whom returns will be lower than they otherwise would be. Congratulations -- CRTC, Rogers, Aliant, NB Power -- for sticking it to everyone! Job well done.
  20. Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: Honestly, I don't see what the comma has to do with it.The first is superfluous (although it wasn't considered as such when I was a lad).The second neither adds nor subtracts from the substance of the sentence.
  21. S Jones from Canada writes: Knowing big business, Rogers likely beat-up Aliant initiating the contract and a senior at Aliant likely saw it or was exposed to it by their team of lawyers, and then cashed in on it after the worked commenced to a critical point. Hahaha - This will cut into Roger's profit margins, giving them another excuse to raise their 'costs', removing more money from their consumers' pockets rather than looking at their own incompetence. Surely, in a corporation as large as Rogers, this would not be the only 'cost-centre' where things get mucked up. And to think Ted is a billionaire to boot....
  22. Steven Koning from Bloomfield Ontario, Canada writes: An individual wanted to give equal portions of his estate to his three children. His will, however, said '... to my children Karen, Mike and Allen.' Karen later sued stating that she deserved fifty percent and the other two children deserved twenty-five percent each due to the placement/lack of a comma. Her claim was upheld. To give all three kids one-third, a comma between Mike and Allen was required.
  23. Steven Koning from Bloomfield Ontario, Canada writes: A woman, without her man, is nothing. A woman, without her, man is nothing!
  24. Jason Fournier from Acton, ON, Canada writes: I agree with 11 & 16 -- lawyers LOVE to pack fifteen ideas into one sentence. Let's call it 'P.P.' -- Period Phobia. It'd be good for companies to study this as it apparently costs companies millions . . .
  25. Carl Burns from Halifax, Canada writes: This is why grammar is still necessary for generations of students to learn the structure of the language they're taking, especially english where so many similar sounding words usually carry different meanings and can alter significantly a message of intent. As was evidenced here the lawyer or the legal secretary who typed it up, though I'm leaning toward the lawyer who drafted the contract, knew little about sentence structure. I bet a copy of the Elements of Style is now available at the law firm that Rogers retains. Or I guess I should say, did retain. I suspect they're on the hunt for another competent firm to represent their legal interests. Commenters 7 & 10 have made strong points in this respect. S Jones, do you think that perhaps people who sign a Roger's contract for phone service should read it a little more carefully to see if there are misplaced commas that might release them from their deal prematurely. You can bet that the Roger's lawyers have done that in light of this decision. I suspect a number of companies since the decision are either reviewing or will be reviewing their legal text structure in their contracts. There's a lot to be said about ensuring that the T's are crossed and the I's dotted.
  26. Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: Grammar trumps intent? Whatever happened to fair play and gentlemen's agreements? Shameful but hardly surprising, given Aliant's propensity for dubious business practices. I signed up for Aliant's high speed Internet a few years ago. After a couple of years, my connection speed dropped from 3Mbs to 1.2Mbs when Aliant 'introduced' a new, higher-priced Ultra High Speed alternative but continued to charge me the same price. In effect, they renamed their High Speed service to Ultra High Speed, increased the price, and introduced a lower speed service. So much for honour among thieves.
  27. Joseph J from Canada writes: This is not legalize. One of the basic rules of punctuation taught in my school years was that commas are properly used when the phrase between the commas can be dropped and the remaining sentence still has meaning. I always check that rule when writing and the MANAGERS , not just the lawyers , should have done the same.
  28. some gal from Ontario from Canada writes: Too funny. In fact, I laughed out loud. The quote does, indeed, indicate that the contract can be terminated at any time with only one year's notice.
  29. Malcolm Prier from Brampton, Canada writes: See this? This is the smallest violin in the world playing just for Ted Rogers. The added expense of running the cable lines will be placed where ROGERS always charges for the consequences of THEIR mistakes...the consumer.
  30. Anti Elvis from Waterloo, Canada writes: Personally, I think this proves nothing more than how shallow and arrogant the business world has become. Intent is intent. I guess I do business the old fashion way......on trust.
  31. Robert Parker from Guadalajara, Canada writes: Lots of stuff about Rogers and lawyers, but only a couple (Mr Boyd's in particular) completely on point of the story's thrust - I too don't see that the comma's presence or absence changes a thing - the sentence clearly says the contract can be cancelled on a year's notice. Any lawyer with expertise in the language of contracts care to comment?
  32. Johanna Hoffmann from Canada writes: Score a big one for language buffs and the grammar police. The fact it happened to Rogers is the icing on the cake! Haven't stopped chuckling since I read the paper...
  33. Opin ion ated from GTA, Canada writes: Thanks to Aliant the Jays likely won't be able to afford the extra 2 million it will take to round out the starting 5 next year. Seriously though, why would anybody do business with Aliant in the future when they know that they pull these types of stunts? (only if they have the only option). This is a case of ego over good business practices.
  34. Thomas Morris from New York, NY, United States writes: Maybe these executives could review the softwood deal and the US could make a few more dollars!
  35. gerhard beck from Canada writes: So a comma put seventeen pages of legal doublespeak into a coma! Sounds like Mr. Rogers on kids TV. And it could not happen to a nicer bunch. Well done Rogers.
  36. Shampa Chakraborty from Ottawa, Canada writes: This is hilarious and ironic. Who would have thought a company, specializing in communications, would misread a contract? It is true that people, in general, are lax about grammar and punctuation usage. For those who think that sort of thing doesn't matter, think again-you could get shafted. :o)
  37. Carl Burns from Halifax, Canada writes: # 32 this has nothing to do with Aliant being sneaky or underhanded. Rogers should bear the full brunt of the error as they drew up the contract. I don't know why in this circumstance, they should be let off the hook. The point to all of this is to know what you are signing. It is obvious that either the Rogers law firm or their negotiating team did not review the document and because of this they reap the harvest they sow. If you draft and sign a badly worded contract you have no one to blame but yourself for hiring incompetent representation. If Rogers wishes to recoup the additional money they have to shell out as a result of this contractual debacle, then they should go after the firm they retain to draft these agreements. Those of you who think that Rogers should be excused from their error, obviously feel that contracts are made to be broken whenever they are inconvenienced by the terms of the agreement. Hence the need for clearly written and understood contracts continues to be a daily necessity.
  38. Bill Hopkins from Granton, Canada writes: For years I taught science in university and I can't tell you the number of times a sudent would react to a poor mark on an essay with '-but you know what I meant.' I could only say that 'No, I do not know what you meant. I know only what you wrote.' Given the lack of attention to writing and language skills in the primary and secondary schools, it is very difficult to impress upon students the need for accurate use of vocabulary and structure. This is not just about legalese. Language is about communication and, as Ted Rogers now knows so well, the improper use of langauge can often communicate something totally unanticipated. This snafu should be a case study in every high school English class.
  39. Mike Veracity from GTA, Canada writes: The contract is clear. Many people are criticizing the lawyers, but what is the alternative, just let Rogers overrule a contract that is clear because they and they alone can set rules of English. For years teachers have told us how small errors in English would eventually lead to large miscommunications. They weren't lying. And to those who criticize lawyers and the rule of law -- would you rather have warlords deciding what things mean?
  40. Robert Fisher from Canada writes: Mr. Parker (#31) et al, the placement of the comma is key. Without it, the contract could only be cancelled after the first five year term on giving written notice of one year. What's interesting is that if the comma were not present it does not appear that the contract could be terminated at the end of the fifth year with notice having been given at the end of the fourth; which effectively means that Aliant would be stuck at the same price point for six years rather than the intended five. Unless, of course, there is further language dealing with termination at the end of the first five year term. If this goes to court, the court will look both at the language in the contract and the intent of the parties. It's highly unlikely that Aliant will be able to convince the court that its intention was to be able to terminate the contract at any time. Clearly the intent was to have an initial five year term with successive five year terms and an annual termiation provision after the first term. If Aliant were really trying to get what the CRTC says they have, it would not have taken the CRTC review of the contract to uncover the issue; Aliant would have been well aware of it.
  41. S. S. from Trenton, Canada writes: In my estimation, the whole sentence is a poorly constructed conveyance of the intent. Shame on the lawyers for either side. However, it matters only to the customers and/or the shareholders of either party. Any costs incurred by Rogers will probably be passed on to its customers. Rogers executives' salaries and bonuses will probably not be affected. Any windfall to Aliant will probably go directly to its executives as increased salaries and bonuses. It all sounds very 'Canadian' to me. The customer/shareholder gets the shaft again. But then, isn't that what the 'Canadian' in CRTC stands for.
  42. Beatriz Perez-Sanchez from Toronto, Canada writes: As one of many consumers who is gouged by Robbers (I mean Rogers) on a monthly basis, I am delighted to see them get their comeuppance. Like many other telecommunications companies, Rogers presents its own customers with written contracts that have little in common with the initial sales pitch for any of their products of services. Today, I shall drink a toast to the grammar police.
  43. edwardo plazinski from Maple Ridge BC, Canada writes: I don't know what the big deal about the comma is. Somebody can't read. It plainly says to me, at least, that the deal is subject to early termination. Why would one sign an 'ironclad' agreement for 5 years and put anything that even smelled like an early termination clause in it?
  44. Lisa Jones from Canada writes: To 3: English is the global language, not French. You will be able to land a job anywhere in the USA as a teacher if nothing else. And furthermore, you will be able to teach ESL anywhere on the planet. So hang on to your degree and supplement it with a teaching credential and you will do just fine.
  45. g h from Canada writes: This is by far the best news I've read in ages! It's about time we begin to stand up against the grammatical demise of our society. I am especially enjoying the fact that it is one of Canada's largest communications companies taking the hit! HA HA. Great stuff!
  46. Al Woods from ottawa, Canada writes: Either Aliant slipped in the extra comment, or Rogers put it in because they weren't good at their grammer, and Aliant let it happen, knowing that it changed the meaning of the sentence. Both scenarios suggest that Aliant did not respect Rogers enough as a business partner to ensure that the contract said exactly what the parties had agreed. Don't we all love to hear about the crooks who, though caught red handed, get off on a technicality? Caveat emptor is one thing, but doesn't anyone cut an honest deal anymore?
  47. Cynical Idealist from Ottawa, Canada writes: A law student at UofO, it’s funny how little good writing is stressed. Maybe it should be. It is not uncommon to read sentences that are improperly constructed, filled with –neither not uncommonly nor unsurprisingly, what, many would regard, although some would argue in the negative, are, contrary to those people’s views, too many double negatives, commas, and words. Thanks, MM for trying to teach us how to write gooder [SIC, joke].
  48. David Knight from Guelph, Canada writes: Hilarious, unless you happen to be a Rogers subscriber. Unless the loss comes out of the salary of the lawyers and executives responsible for this foul-up (fat chance), guess who gets to pay for this mistake?
  49. John Cardoulis from Toronto, Canada writes: I too read the sentence as Aliant having the option to cancel the agreement. What's even funnier though is that the article itself has punctuation errors. The third paragraph, second sentence, should read 'But, early last year, Rogers was informed...' not 'But early last year, Rogers was informed...' Too many people think a comma is meant as a pause in a sentence. It is not. Text within commas should be able to be extracted from the sentence without breaking the sentence's integrity. All of this has nothing to do with lawyers and business and trust and realtionships. It's all about plain old English and communicating properly using the tools of our language!
  50. Rene Jamieson from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I spend a great deal of classroom time explaining why I deduct marks for sloppy writing and poor punctuation. The standard whine, 'But you knew what I meant' echoes throughout universities and colleges across the land, and I, for one, have drawn the line. I tell my students 'This is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put!' I teach adults, many of whom have university degrees, and I am appalled by their evident lack of training in the basics of spelling, grammar, punctuation - syntax in general. When universities have remedial courses to deal with this lack, it is obvious that elementary, junior high and high schools are too busy developing self-esteem by not failing students who cannot grasp the rudimentaries of any subject, rather than making sure that effort is rewarded. Perhaps it is now time to have remedial classes in punctuation in Business Schools and Law Schools, too!
  51. Cecil Terwilliger from Canada writes: Our educational systems place do not attach a high enough priority on the teaching of proper grammar and spelling in our schools today. It is discouraging to see otherwise intelligent people not knowing the difference between 'there' and 'their', 'its' and 'it's', 'a mute point' and 'a moot point'. This is not a criticism of the people but of the educational system.
  52. Doug Dyson from Toronto, Canada writes: Very happy to see some finally sticking the contract fine print to Rogers for a change!
  53. Anne Account from Gunn, Alberta, Canada writes: Firstly, what is the CRTC and its overpaid-and-appointed-for-life-to-twiddle-their-thumbs-mandarins doing ruling on a contract? Their decision will certainly be the subject of an appeal if it is indeed solely based on the comma, which has allowed Aliant to avoid its obligations. My guess is that this was either a boilerplate clause that was in all versions of this agreement signed with all third parties (i.e. all Rogers partners in arrangements like this should check their contracts for the magic comma), or that this was a change made by a junior VP in a hotel boardroom at a negotiating session that the legal department missed. Secondly, the general rule, borrowed from English law, is that '[p]unctuation is no part of the statute,' and that '[c]ourts will . . . disregard the punctuation, or repunctuate, if need be, to render the true meaning of the statute.' This rule has been modified somewhat with the passage of time, but the U.S. Supreme Court has refused, as recently as 1993, to apply the rule that a modifying clause modifies the last antecedent, even though it could easily have concluded on the basis of the statutory language that application of the last antecedent rule was 'mandated by the [statute’s] grammatical structure.' The rule 'is quite sensible as a matter of grammar,' the Court explained, but it 'is not compelled.' (see Nobelman and Lamie decisions from the mid-1990s). Although this is the clear rule in statutory interpretation (both in U.S. and Anglo-Canadian common law) is that commas will not allow the meaning of a clause to be modified in a counter-intuitive fashion, this may not be the case in construing private contracts (although these rules are generally very similar). Refusal to be bound by the rules of punctuation and grammar, it seems, gives the Courts some flexibility in construing statutes and contracts. School children, of course, rely on these cases at their peril.
  54. C Y from Toronto, Canada writes: Ah, what a wonderful story to stat the morning! It's gonna, be hard, to wipe, the smile, off my face, today.
  55. Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: #40, that is merely re-stating the CRTC decision.My Point is that the comma is irrelevant.I would like to see it explained why it is relevant, not the bald statement that it is self evident.
  56. Ken DeLuca from Arnprior, ON, Canada writes: Blogger #26 asks, 'Whatever happened to fair play and gentlemen's agreements?' The gentlemen went to law school and lost their innocence. Blogger #46 asks, 'doesn't anyone cut an honest deal anymore? ' No, they hire lawyers who, because of their adversarial training, can get the best, not the most even, deal for their client. Blogger # 30 laments the lack of trust in the business world and prefers ' the old fashion' way of doing business. His old fashion way, presumably business without lawyers, must be very old indeed. I have always understood that solicitors were the second oldest profession.
  57. Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: Here's an explanation of intent that no one has yet mentioned. Rogers thought they were getting an iron-clad agreement for five years and Aliant thought it was signing a contract with the option to cancel with 12-month's notice. There need not be malice aforethought on either side, just miscommunication due to the inability of Rogers and their lawyers to read basic English. As for writing short, simple sentences, such a practice makes the expression of complex ideas more difficult, not less.
  58. scott thomas from Canada writes: #55, Robert: the second comma is not irrelevant because, when commas come in pairs, the clause after the paired commas refers to the clause before the commas and not to the clause inside the commas. Re-read my previous sentence to see what I mean. And incidentally, it is likely that Aliant sincerely believed that the sentence meant what it said and not what Rogers said that it meant.
  59. Chad Noor from Montreal, Canada writes: Mr. Boyd: the second comma is relevant because without it the termination clause would only apply to the subsequent five-year terms and not the original five year term.
  60. D Rittenhouse from Canada writes: Lawyer Joke? Ok, here it is: Q: When lawyers die, why are they buried 10 feet under instead of six? A: Because deep down they are good.
  61. jim dodge from Canada writes: Take that Rogers! Nice to see the ripoff-corp it is get screwed for once!!
  62. Michael Elkin from Toronto, Canada writes: If they had one qualified English teacher on the team, they could have dispensed with at least two lawyers and done it right. There should have been a period after the second 'date it is made'. Following that should have been a second sentence.
  63. Buster Mouse from Regina, Canada writes: #55 and #53: One of the issues here, as far as I can tell, is that the sentence as constructed poorly expresses the intent--even if it had been properly punctuated there is the potential for ambiguity in its meaning; this is especially so if one were to make the argument, as courts are wont to do, that a court can glean intent irrespective of conventions of grammar (grammar is descriptive, by the way, and not proscriptive: there are only accepted conventions and not hard and fast rules. These conventiones, however, are what make our intentions in communicating with language comprehensible to others). My point is that the sentence is so poorly constructed that the issue of the comma in or out does not resolve the ambiguity of meaning.
  64. bad dog from United States writes: I am so pleased that so many of you find this 'sticking it to Rogers' so amusing. That you 'got a good chuckle this morning' on reading it. Especially those of you who enjoyed it because 'I get gouged by Rogers every month'. Yes, this will certainly alleviate THAT problem. Rogers is the only cable tv provider AND only provider of mobile phone service in my area now that I'm back in Canada and *I* and your other fellow Canadians are going to have to pay for this. Nice of you to yuk it up at our - not Rogers' - expense.
  65. Vic Murai from Canada writes: Last year, I couldn't even spell 'lawyer'; today, I are one. Rogers' better get a bonafide lawyer who know what its doing to cheque all legall documents before it sines them. Now they will no what it feels like to be taken advantantge of by sumone else just like they have dun to sum of their customers. I should no. I pride myself on being an expute gramatest. Good on ya Alliant !
  66. Patrick Kinnear from Charlottetown, Canada writes: This is an another example of how far we have strayed from basic grammer which is not considered imporant in most schools today. I remember having to study Using Our Grammer 7, 8 and 9. I did not like it much but I have not forgotten the lessons. Maybe grammer will again become more important in schools. I once had an Economics professor at University who at the beginning of the year told the class, 'I do not care how good your Economics papers or exams are, you will fail if you do not use proper English grammer.' The impotance of careful proofreading cannot be emphasized enough. An Aging Hippie
  67. Don Zettler from Canada writes: Rene #50 You are a teacher? What kind of a sentence is this? 'This is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put!' What is wrong with saying? 'This is the kind of nonsense that I will not tolerate.' Spelling and proper use of words and punctuation make reading a pleasure for me.
  68. Paul who is from Vancouver, Canada writes: What goes around comes around. Does everyone remember when Rogers Cablesystems used negative option billing in 1995 to confuse customers into taking on new cable channels they neither asked for or wanted? Out here in BC, we either had to pay for these channmels that were added to our bill without our permission, or specifically decline them in advance of billing. Parliament outlawed the practice in 1996. This year, Rogers started using negative option to generate revenue by sending its customers spam text messages over its wireless network and then charging customers a fee for opting out of receiving the spam messages. This most recent attempt has yet to reach widespread public awareness. Rogers can CRY ME A RIVER.
  69. Steve St-Laurent from Vancouver, Canada writes: It's interesting to note how many posters here – 3, 11, 14 and others – are themselves missing important commas in their postings. If it can slip by an English grad, getting it past a lawyer should be trivial. 'Duh, Rogers!' and 'Great work, lawyers!' both require commas. The judge, in the case cited by poster 22, is obviously a fan of the 'Harvard comma.' Boy, I would have appealed this one.
  70. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Well this blog probably saved me time and money. Enough that I could get the Globe And Mail for decades! Here in Manitoba, Rogers is offering all kinds of deals to get into the Province's Cellular game. MTS has purchased a stake in Aliant. So as a novice to the Cellular world, we'll get set up with each company on a Month-by-month basis, rather than a contract. That way we'll get to read the way their contracts read and how their billing is organized. We only use it for 800 numbers and emergency during the summer/fall anyway. The darn things are like electronic dog-leashes. But I agree that the comma issue is a function of any language, and that if two people can't enter into a simple agreement, they should get the services of the best lawyers they can afford. I'm surprised that the CRTC set itself up as the Grammar guru, but it at least served to underline the importance of written agreements, versus moral intentions or motives. Reducing agreements to written form in matters of contract law is far more stabilizing. Lawyers come and lawyers go but the bull goes on forever. I was impressed about the comment to have the contract in French, since New Brunswick is an officially Bilingual Province, and the CRTC does rule in both languages, but maybe the contract was written to say that all dealings would be in English? But there is an underlying sense that we still feel jealous of the rich and powerful. That one bothers me. We have to get to the point where the wealthy realize their raison-d'etre and that they have this privelege as long as they provide value for value. As consumers, we are realizing that no snake can hide under a rock for very long anymore thanks to electronic communication, from pedofiles to bad companies. There are many blogs taking shots at bad companies, and all the notwithstanding clauses in the world won't do a thing to help them gain on a false basis. The Aliant law-team is probably in Cancun. Rogers's team is getting reamed.
  71. Rick Harris from Toronto, Canada writes: Hahahaha looks good on em...glad I am not one of their customers anymore....Cheers to Rogers raising their rates!!!
  72. Nicholas Kim from Canada writes: Aside from the practicality arguments, why should intent not trump the language of an agreement/contract?
  73. Clayton Burns from Vancouver, Canada writes: Clayton Burns from Vancouver, Canada writes: Grant's well-written article seems to have a missing element: the utility of corpus linguistics in helping to focus difficult language issues. Especially, I would recommend the COBUILD system and its founding editor John Sinclair. Without a large corpus of sample sentences in general and legal contexts where punctuation before conditional clauses can be studied clinically, it will be hard to make definite statements. Certainly, to offer up such relics as 'Elements of Style' as authorities would not be sound (if the comma is just a matter of style, how can it have rigorous legal implications anyway). Rogers does not seem to have a good reputation at all. One qualification I would make is that their work in the Maclean's University Student Issue of June 26 was excellent. Although reporting on the universities in some newspapers may have been modified by relentless ad buying by institutions, I did not see any evidence that Maclean's failed in objectivity. I find Grant to be an articulate and reasonable reporter, but I think that he should get The Globe and Mail to make the 5th edition COBUILD Advanced Learner's and their Intermediate Grammar official for its operations. There is too much obsolete thinking about grammar in the media. It seems to me that the 'comma conflict' sentence is just plain ambiguous. The real issue is not the comma but skill in conditional reasoning. In our schools, is there any comprehensive and intelligent program for teaching conditional hypothetical modal past perfect reasoning, for example? The best story for studying it is 'The Jolly Corner' by Henry James (what might have been if the main character had remained in New York). In law school do they study ambiguity and interpretation systematically through another fascinating story by James, 'The Turn of the Screw'? Obsessing about the comma is bottom-up English. Working from conditional reasoning down is far more powerful. claytonburns@gmail.com
  74. harry carnie from Telkwa, British Columbia, Canada writes: Do NOT laugh! You will ALL pay for this on your rates in future.
  75. John Worthy from Canada writes: Best comment I haven't seen here: Eats, shoots, and leaves. Brilliant!
  76. Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: #59, Chad, that's just repeating the CRTC findings.The first comma after the conjuction 'and' is misplaced.It has no right to be there.The first clause contains a subject and predicate and therefor can stand alone.The following clauses are dependant.So I say that single comma is non-relevant to the overall thrust of the document and also destroys #58's (scott) contention because there aint two commas.Them's grammar, mate!
  77. Derek B from Vancouver, Canada writes: #64 is correct: It's the consumers that are going to pay in the end in the form of higher fees. Rogers won't lose a dime.
  78. A V from Canada writes: Having read Eats, Shoots & Leaves and loved it, I can only chuckle. Someone send this story to Lynne Truss - it's a classic!
  79. Robert Thomson from Waterloo, Canada writes: That's a lot of wordy words about a simple sentence, especially by Anne Account. Sticking it to Rogers is not really a good idea either as the extra cost involved will no doubt be spread over those usuriously large monthly bills so many of these bloggers complain about. (lack of commas intentional). Recommended reading for Ted and his merry band and anyone else interested would be 'The Elements of Style' by William Strunk, Jr., with updates and further points made by E.B.White in his 1959 version of the text. K I S S and bully for good English education
  80. Rafael Pacquing from San Francisco, United States writes: No money down? No, money down!
  81. Ela Manu from Reston, United States writes: People, not all the lawyers know all about grammar, spelling and punctuation. A lawyer, age early 30s, working for the Homeland Security, took a class of advanced English grammar with me, the ESL. He asked the teacher why the verbs with a suffix –ing cannot be a predicate. In my ex-communist, now, country the equivalent question would have killed your grade in middle school. The problem with commas in English, is that sometimes they are redundant compared with Latin languages structures. As an example, if you use comma and “and” when you enumerate identical items, that’s illiteracy. If two of the items have something in common and ask for ‘and’ they would never come as the last two in the enumeration: My sister, my grand-mother, my mother and father, my friend Mary and my English teacher from high school came to my house warming party. One other reason there is an invasion of extra commas in American English might be relater with the limited syntactic skillfulness, which means inability to identify sentences and correlations, between main and subordinate clauses, at the first reading.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Top Report on Business Stories

Report on Business Columnists

Top Stories by Section