i shall never surrender.

[Bijan]

5 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

You can't shoot someone on your own property because you don't like what they said. That's never been a tenet of absolute private property rights. 

You can ask them to leave or not enter your property. I leave it to State laws whether you can shoot them subsequently.

[MrBirdman]

6 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'd like to see that evidence. 

One of many papers documenting the change. This was how psychiatry was practiced then (and largely still is). 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779/

Also, the Kinsey report. 

You’re wrong. 

[NSXCIGAR]

1 minute ago, Bijan said:

You can ask them to leave or not enter your property. I leave it to State laws whether you can shoot them subsequently.

Correct, and only the force necessary to get them to leave if they refuse is allowed. 

[NSXCIGAR]

3 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

One of many papers documenting the change. This was how psychiatry was practiced then (and largely still is). 

Also, the Kinsey report. 

You’re wrong. 

Why wasn't the Kinsey report cited by the APA?

The NCBI paper specifically outlines how the decision was political. Did you read it?

[Bijan]

7 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

There's a difference between thinking certain people are inferior and thinking they're subhuman which was much more prevalent before 1861 than after.

I think very prevalent during and between the two world wars until the end of the second. As evidenced by the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide.

[NSXCIGAR]

Just now, Bijan said:

I think very prevalent during and between the two world wars until the end of the second. As evidenced by the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide.

I'm talking outside of war time. Genocides have occurred before and after the wars, both racially motivated and not. 

[Bijan]

10 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

As far as private institutions/parties/companies banning speech or people from speaking non-violently, yes, as long as there is no state involvement or pressure. In the case of universities any school that accepts government funds is considered not fully private. If a 100% privately funded school or business wants to ban a person or curtail speech have at it. 

While we all agree free speech is important, twas not always so, even in the USA.

Novels banned due to (perceived) indecency.

Communists curtailed by the state.

It's a post ww2, maybe post Vietnam, position to maintain absolute free speech.

Though I view this too as progress.

[MrBirdman]

4 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Why wasn't the Kinsey report cited by the APA?

The APA doesn’t release a detailed justification for its decisions. The Kinsey report was the most influential study at that time on the subject. To suggest it had no influence is daft in the extreme. 

So I take it you disagree with the decision?

 

[Bijan]

2 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'm talking outside of war time. Genocides have occurred before and after the wars, both racially motivated and not. 

The decade preceding the war saw such rhetoric at a peak in Germany. With the non genocidal portions progressively carried out against the Jews (dispossession, barring from work, etc.).

Also France saw much in the popular press though it didn't have as much political traction. Possibly due to the legacy of the French revolution, Napoleon, and j'accuse.

[NSXCIGAR]

1 minute ago, MrBirdman said:

The APA doesn’t release a detailed justification for its decisions. The Kinsey report was the most influential study at that time on the subject. To suggest it had no influence is daft in the extreme. 

So I take it you disagree with the decision?

The NCBI paper highlights many of the studies and data they relied on. Why not Kinsey?

Also, one can agree with a conlcusion while disagreeing with the method used to reach it. It's called being right for the wrong reasons. 

2 minutes ago, Bijan said:

The decade preceding the war saw such rhetoric at a peak in Germany. With the non genocidal portions progressively carried out against the Jews (dispossession, barring from work, etc.).

I would put an asterisk on the interwar period. Anything between 1914-1945 is kind of a special case. 

[Bijan]

16 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Because people think non-science is science doesn't make it so. And it's not the job of science or scientists to be arbiters of morality.

I think you're arguing the point of @MrBirdmanand me.

It's not a science issue. It's a morality issue. Both in racism and anti homosexuality, those claiming science on their side jumped the gun, to find an "objective and impartial" basis for their prejudice.

Of course it could have been the case as is entertained briefly as a thought experiment in the book Sapiens, that there could have been several species of humans, if neanderthals had stuck around, and we can think about the philosophical and moral consequences, but we live in a world of a single human race.

[MrBirdman]

2 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The NCBI paper highlights many of the studies and data they relied on. Why not Kinsey?

 

First, it doesn’t matter whether they used Kinsey or not. You just admitted they used studies and data. So you were wrong.

Second, the paper cites Kinsey several times and describes his influence. So that’s in there too. 

[Bijan]

6 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I would put an asterisk on the interwar period. Anything between 1914-1945 is kind of a special case. 

Much of the racist propaganda in Germany during that period was based on earlier works from France (the Dreyfus affair and j'accuse were 1898-1899) and the "protocols of the elders of Zion" was Russian and preceded that period as well (1903).

[NSXCIGAR]

1 minute ago, MrBirdman said:

First, it doesn’t matter whether they used Kinsey or not. You just admitted they used studies and data. So you were wrong.

Second, the paper cites Kinsey several times and describes his influence. So that’s in there too. 

What? Why am I wrong because I said they used data?

Yes, the paper references Kinsey but there's no evidence APA used it in their conclusions. One would think they would use any and all available data to support their decision as it was highly contentious. 

Also, all Kinsey really showed was that homosexuality was more common than previously known. They may have thought there were inherent issues with that for whatever reason.

The fact remains the evidence is overwhelming that the APA made their decision for political reasons. 

3 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Much of the racist propaganda in Germany during that period was based on earlier works from France (the Dreyfus affair and j'accuse were 1898-1899) and the "protocols of the elders of Zion" was Russian and preceded that period as well (1903).

I'm sure there were plenty of racist writings prior. Were they popular? Did that reflect the general sentiment? Were they amplified from those texts? Specifically in Germany why did racism against Jews suddenly increase in 1919? Sounds much more like a unique isolated case to me. 

[Bijan]

5 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'm sure there were plenty of racist writings prior. Were they popular? Did that reflect the general sentiment? Were they amplified from those texts? Specifically in Germany why did racism against Jews suddenly increase in 1919? Sounds much more like a unique isolated case to me. 

This was a case on the one hand of populism. The ideas were there and popular but no decent politician went there.

Second it was a case as I hinted at earlier of national character/history. The French under Napoleon imposed liberal values on much of Europe by force. In Germany this created a backlash against progressive values, since those values could be painted as foreign and alien. While in France those values of liberty, equality, fraternity could not so easily be dismissed as they were native.

[MrBirdman]

10 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

What? Why am I wrong because I said they used data?

Yes, the paper references Kinsey but there's no evidence APA used it in their conclusions. One would think they would use any and all available data to support their decision as it was highly contentious. 

Also, all Kinsey really showed was that homosexuality was more common than previously known. They may have thought there were inherent issues with that for whatever reason.

The fact remains the evidence is overwhelming that the APA made their decision for political reasons. 

You really can’t admit you were wrong, can you? First you said it wasn’t based on science, then I proved you were wrong and now you have moved the goalpost and are saying there is “overwhelming evidence” it was political. 

There is nothing political about psychology recognizing that the stigma associated with homosexuality is part of why it causes harm.

And the paper I cited categorically explains how this change came about. I don’t see where it says that there is overwhelming evidence it was political. In fact you’ve repeatedly asserted that without any evidence. 

[MrBirdman]

11 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

What? Why am I wrong because I said they used data?

Yes, the paper references Kinsey but there's no evidence APA used it in their conclusions. One would think they would use any and all available data to support their decision as it was highly contentious. 

Also, all Kinsey really showed was that homosexuality was more common than previously known. They may have thought there were inherent issues with that for whatever reason.

The fact remains the evidence is overwhelming that the APA made their decision for political reasons. 

I'm sure there were plenty of racist writings prior. Were they popular? Did that reflect the general sentiment? Were they amplified from those texts? Specifically in Germany why did racism against Jews suddenly increase in 1919? Sounds much more like a unique isolated case to me. 

I’m done with this. You’re clearly just going to keep dodging every refutation of your assertions to avoid admitting you were wrong. I offer evidence, you start on something else. Is it that hard to admit you made a mistake? Is your ego that fragile?

[MrBirdman]

Lastly, @NSXCIGAR, I will just remind you your first comment was that science had nothing to do with the change. After I presented evidence it did, you recognized that there were studies and data involved, yet claimed you still weren’t wrong! That’s how absurd you’re being. Please just admit you misspoke, your statement was not accurate, and let’s move on. 

[El Presidente]

........I find if remarkable how good intelligent people manage to get their knickers in such a knot? 

Not aiming that comment at anyone in particular......but if the knickers fit 

[NSXCIGAR]

12 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

Lastly, @NSXCIGAR, I will just remind you your first comment was that science had nothing to do with the change. After I presented evidence it did, you recognized that there were studies and data involved, yet claimed you still weren’t wrong! That’s how absurd you’re being. Please just admit you misspoke, your statement was not accurate, and let’s move on. 

I'm totally unsure what you're referring to. What evidence have you shown that the APA decision wasn't political? I've seen "you're wrong" but that's about it. The only thing you posted was the NCIB paper (which I was already well aware of) clearly shows the decison was political. 

I think you may also be misunderstanding my charaterization of the APA. I'm in no way saying they did use science in their original classification. Nor am I defending the APA as a bastion of science. Neither of those have anything to do with the fact that the 1973 removal was a totally unscientific and political decision. Two things can be true at the same time. 

[westg]

We are all on the same team  here . Lets not assume to much . The three of you contribite widely and its great. Believe me , poke the bear to often and things go wrong. I know 🌴😎

[generalnegroni]

5 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

 

 

no disrespect but you could not be more wrong. a great many people take punctuation extremely seriously - 

 

 

Obviously, there is more to this divide than punctuation but anyone suggesting it does not matter is kidding themselves.

 

Great hyphen debate splits Czechoslovak MPs – archive, 1990

30 March 1990: Compromise over what to call Czechoslovakia after the fall of the communist government

 

Mon 30 Mar 2020 21.00 AEDT

 

When the Czecho-Slovak Republic was established in 1918 it was spelled with the hyphen, but in 1921 the government renamed the country Czechoslovakia. After the collapse of Communist rule at the end of 1989, the Slovaks demanded that the hyphen be reinstated. On 1 January 1993, the country separated into two new states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

The Czechoslovak parliament, unable to agree on a new official name for the country, compromised yesterday by choosing two.

The president, Vaclav Havel, had warned deputies that the country would become a laughing stock unless it quickly resolved the Great Hyphen Debate.

Deputies rejected various proposals for a name to replace the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in the post-communist era.

Slovak insistence on their national identity being enshrined in a hyphenated form of Czecho-Slovakia led to 12 hours of discussion and backroom discussion before the final formula was agreed.

Now Czechoslovakia will be known as the Czechoslovak Federative Republic in Bohemia and Moravia, while in Slovakia it will be the Czecho-Slovak Federative Republic. The all-important hyphen distinguishes the Czech and Slovak-language versions of the name.

 

 

The debate was first reported in the Guardian 65 years earlier:

Czechs and Slovaks: a matter of a hyphen

From a correspondent
24 January 1925

Vienna, January 18
The club of the senators and deputies of the Slovak People’s party in Czecho-Slovakia has sent an open letter to the Austrian Chancellor, Herr Ramek, asking him to withdraw a recent Governmental order according to which the hyphen must no longer be used between the words “Czech” and “Slovak” in the name of the Czecho-Slovak State. The Austrian Government introduced this new order under pressure from the Czecho-Slovak Legation in Vienna.

The memorandum argues that, without prejudice to international customs, the Slovak deputies are entitled to ask this correction from the Austrian Chancellor, as the Peace Treaty of St Germain, in its French, English, and Italian text, speaks only of the “Czecho-Slovak” State or of “Czecho-Slovakia,” and that the Peace Treaty clearly mentions that the Czecho-Slovak State has been constituted by “the peoples of Bohemia” on the one hand and “the peoples of Slovakia” on the other.

Moreover, says the memorandum, the deputies wish to remind the Czechs of the decisions of the Constituent Assembly on October 30, 1918, in Tureiansky St Martin. Here, it declared it was agreed in a secret clause that the existing constitutional relation between Czechs and Slovaks should remain valid for ten years; after the lapse of this period the Slovaks should regain their right of self-determination, and a plebiscite will have to decide if they are to remain in the old relation with the Czechs or if they desire to establish an independent Slovak State.

In face of these facts, the hyphen between the two words is no mere question of orthography, says the memorandum. Accordingly the Slovak deputies beg the Austrian Government not to assist Prague in its endeavour to deprive the Slovaks of all their rights guaranteed by treaties concluded with the Czechs and by the international Peace Treaty.

The memorandum is signed by Father Hlinka as chairman of the Slovak People’s party.

 

 

 

Thank you for your well reasoned response, Ken. I would correct my earlier statement but I believe your point reinforces it.

 

Clearly the arguments over the Czechoslovakian hyphen were not in fact over punctuation or nomenclature at all, but rather, over national identity and it’s best means of expression. Your source itself acknowledges  the fear that the casual viewer would mistake the debate for petty semantic when the roots run deeper, into the very political fabric of that now extinct nation. In this context, the hyphen is synecdoche, and national identity the real question at stake, with a hyphen the unwitting battle ground, not the prize. 
 

Language serves as our medium for ideas, and, if people mean to give offence, their first and best attempt will invariably be the ship of language, for which punctuation (of a kind) is the anchor. Thus has it always been. Should someone wish to give offence, they will find a way to do so, but it is the meaning behind the full-stop and not the full-stop itself, the context, not the general use, that separates the noble sentence ender from the passive aggressive stop. Should people not wish to understand this, I cannot make them.

 

Time has proven that what punctuation set together, god can tear apart, and the hyphen could not join together long too warring peoples, but between Boomers and Millenials, let us return from Czechoslovakia declaring: Peace in our Time(s)! 
 

P.S. I could not advise the use of a period on your tombstone - it would not be the classic style. However, it is, as they say, your funeral.

[Ken Gargett]

28 minutes ago, generalnegroni said:

Thank you for your well reasoned response, Ken. I would correct my earlier statement but I believe your point reinforces it.

 

Clearly the arguments over the Czechoslovakian hyphen were not in fact over punctuation or nomenclature at all, but rather, over national identity and it’s best means of expression. Your source itself acknowledges  the fear that the casual viewer would mistake the debate for petty semantic when the roots run deeper, into the very political fabric of that now extinct nation. In this context, the hyphen is synecdoche, and national identity the real question at stake, with a hyphen the unwitting battle ground, not the prize. 
 

Language serves as our medium for ideas, and, if people mean to give offence, their first and best attempt will invariably be the ship of language, for which punctuation (of a kind) is the anchor. Thus has it always been. Should someone wish to give offence, they will find a way to do so, but it is the meaning behind the full-stop and not the full-stop itself, the context, not the general use, that separates the noble sentence ender from the passive aggressive stop. Should people not wish to understand this, I cannot make them.

 

Time has proven that what punctuation set together, god can tear apart, and the hyphen could not join together long too warring peoples, but between Boomers and Millenials, let us return from Czechoslovakia declaring: Peace in our Time(s)! 
 

P.S. I could not advise the use of a period on your tombstone - it would not be the classic style. However, it is, as they say, your funeral.

first, thanks for the effort in your response and my apols that i have to cut this brief - mothersitting for the afternoon and so enjoying debates on the internet is not on the agenda.

i guess my insistence on this (and yes, obviously two nations would not, or should not go to war over a hyphen - that would be insane, although these days, who would be surprised. yes, much more to it).

i have a great mate who wrote the text book on grammar (westie - it was certainly used in WA for many years so you probably studied from it) that many education systems out here used for many years. try telling him punctuation does not matter. it paid for his house (yes, i understand that is not quite the impact we are discussing but he'd still argue tooth and nail as to its utmost importance). 

i grew up in a legal family - dad and many uncles etc, were solicitors, barristers, judges, one chief judge of the supreme court here - and to attempt to tell them punctuation is irrelevant? excommunication. i worked as a lawyer in Australia, the uk and the states and i never met a colleague who'd dismiss punctuation.

but it is only fair i give you some practical examples.

tell me that one roger casement was of the view that punctuation was not a matter of life and death.

and the cases which involved millions of dollars which turned on a simple comma or other punctuation mark. this includes a famous one but it is far from alone. 

 

The commas that cost companies millions

Share using Email

 

 

Share on Twitter

 

Share on FacebookShare on Linkedin

 

 

(Image credit: Getty Images)

 

For most people, a stray comma isn’t the end of the world. But in some cases, the exact placement of a punctuation mark can cost huge sums of money.

W

 

How much can a misplaced comma cost you?

If you’re texting a loved one or dashing off an email to a colleague, the cost of misplacing a piece of punctuation will be – at worst – a red face and a minor mix-up.

But for some, contentious commas can be a path to the poor house.

A dairy company in the US city of Portland, Maine settled a court case for $5m earlier this year because of a missing comma.

Three lorry drivers for Oakhurst Dairy claimed that they were owed years of unpaid overtime wages, all because of the way commas were used in legislation governing overtime payments.

The state’s laws declared that overtime wasn’t due for workers involved in “the canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: 1) agricultural produce; 2) meat and fish products; and 3) perishable foods”.

The drivers managed to successfully argue that because there was no comma after “shipment” and before “or distribution”, they were owed overtime pay. If a comma had been there, the law would have explicitly ruled out those who distribute perishable foods.

Story continues below

 

Workers load milk onto trucks at the Oakhurst dairy plant in 2013 (Credit: Getty Images)

Because there was confusion, the US Court of Appeals ruled in their favour, benefiting around 120 of the firm’s drivers. David Webbert, the lawyer who helped bring the case against the company, told reporters at the time that the inclusion of a comma in the clause “would have sunk our ship”. (He didn’t respond to interview requests from the BBC.)

The slightest misstep in punctuating a clause in a contract can have massive unintended consequences

The slip-up shows that the slightest misstep in punctuating a clause in a contract can have massive unintended consequences.

“Punctuation matters,” says Ken Adams, author of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting. But not all punctuation is made equal: contractual minefields are not seeded with semicolons or em-dashes (here’s one: – ) waiting to explode when tripped over.

“It boils down to commas,” says Adams. “They matter, and exactly how depends on the context.”

Delivering definition

Commas in contracts link separate clauses in a non-definitive way, leaving their reading open to interpretation. While a full stop is literally that – a full and complete stop to one thought or sentence, and the signal of the start of another – commas occupy a linguistic middle ground, and one that’s often muddled. “Commas are a proxy for confusion as to what part of a sentence relates to what,” Adams explains.

Commas occupy a linguistic middle ground, and one that’s often muddled

The English language is fluid, evolving and highly subjective. Arguments have been fought over the value of so-called Oxford commas (an optional comma before the word “and” or “or” at the end of a list). There might be good arguments on either side of the debate, but this doesn’t work for the law because there needs to be a definitive answer: yes or no. In high-stakes legal agreements, how commas are deployed is crucial to their meaning. And in the case of Oakhurst Dairy against its delivery drivers, the Oxford comma is judged to have favoured the latter’s meaning.

But just because you mean to say something, it doesn’t mean that a court will agree with you, says Jeff Nobles, a Texas-based appellate lawyer who was involved in an insurance case that hinged, in part, on the punctuation of a contract.

According to Nobles, most US courts will say it doesn’t really matter what the parties subjectively intended; it’s the objective intent in the written terms of their contract. “Punctuation sometimes will change the meaning of a sentence,” he says.

Nobles represented an insurance company in a Texas Supreme Court case concerning insurance coverage for a worker who died on the job.

Nobles argued successfully that punctuation mattered for a contractual indemnity provision, when the company tried to trigger coverage under its umbrella insurance policy after a subcontracted employee died on the job. It set a precedent in the state’s legal system, he believes.

He says US courts have become increasingly textual – “they’ve looked more and more at the words on the paper rather than the testimony of the people who used those words on the paper.”

Yet arguments over commas have been raging for more than a century.

‘An expensive comma’

In 1872, an American tariff law including an unwanted comma cost taxpayers nearly $2m (the equivalent of $40m today). The United States Tariff Act, as originally drafted in 1870, allowed “fruit plants, tropical and semi-tropical for the purpose of propagation or cultivation” to be exempt from import tariffs.

For an unknown reason, when revised two years later, a stray comma sneaked in between “fruit” and “plants”. Suddenly all tropical and semi-tropical fruits could be imported without any charge.

 

An 1872 tiff over tariffs and tropical fruit cost taxpayers $40m – all caused by a comma (Credit: Getty Images)

Members of the US Congress debated the issue and the problem was fixed – but not before the New York Times bemoaned the use of “An Expensive Comma”. It wouldn’t be the last such error.

Contract language is like software code: do it right and everything works smoothly. But make a typo and the whole thing falls apart

“Contract language is limited and stylised,” says Adams. He compares it to software code: do it right and everything works smoothly. But make a typo and the whole thing falls apart.

When errors are introduced into legal documents, they’re likely to be noticed far more than in any other form of writing, he says. “People are more prone to fighting over instances of syntactic ambiguity than in other kinds of writing.”

Muddying the waters

Of course, in some circumstances, those drafting contracts may want to introduce ambiguities. Getting different countries to sign up to the same principles can be challenging, particularly for climate change agreements.  

Early climate change conventions included this line:

“The Parties have a right to, and should, promote sustainable development.”

The sentence ensures those signing the agreement have the ability to promote sustainable development – and should do so.

But in its original draft, the second comma was placed after “promote”, not before it:

“The Parties have a right to, and should promote, sustainable development.”

Some countries weren’t happy with the original wording because they didn’t necessarily want to be locked into promoting sustainable development. Moving the comma kept the naysayers happy while placating those who wanted stronger action.

“By being slightly creative with punctuation, countries can feel like their interests have been addressed,” explains Stephen Cornelius, chief advisor on climate change with the WWF, who has represented the UK and EU at UN climate change negotiations. “You’re trying to get an agreement that people can substantially agree with.”

 

Most people try to make contract language as clear as possible – but sometimes leaving a bit of ambiguity can help both sides negotiate better (Credit: Getty Images)

Tricks of the trade

Such linguistic flexibility happens more often than you’d think.

“In diplomacy, even though you try to have a single agreement, it’s very common to change the meaning for different parties,” says climate change negotiator Laura Hanning Scarborough. “You can use terms like ‘inter alia’, or ‘this includes, amongst other things’ to blur the lines to include anything. You can use commas as part of that, too. There are so many language tricks you use to appease people.”

For most people, however, making sure that contracts are unambiguous is important. For that reason, it’s crucial to test contract language to breaking point by giving it to someone who will test its limits – someone who will read it in the most awkward, unhelpful way, says Tiffany Kemp, a commercial contracting trainer for the International Association for Contract and Commercial Management.

One of the biggest cases battled over a comma was a dispute between two Canadian telecommunications companies. Rogers Communications and Bell Aliant fought a legal battle worth CAD$1m ($760,000) over a contract to replace utility poles across the country.

The argument stemmed from a single sentence:

“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.”

The two sides argued that the comma after “five (5) year terms” meant something different: Bell Aliant said that the single year’s notice of termination applied at any time, Rogers that it only applied after the first five-year term ended.

This was important as Rogers had struck a great deal under their reading of the contract: when they signed a contract to lease the poles from Bell Aliant in 2002, they were paying just CAD$9.60 per pole. By 2004, the cost had nearly doubled. Bell Aliant, understandably, wanted to terminate the contract and renegotiate at the new, higher price. Rogers didn’t.

Successive courts were equally uncertain about the agreement: Canada’s Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission first declared in favour of Bell Aliant in 2006; a year later, it changed its mind after consulting the French language version of the contract, which didn’t include the same ambiguity.

This dispute wasn’t brought about by wilful ignorance, reckons Kemp. “Sometimes there are genuinely different understandings,” she explains. “That little comma was put in a place that you would put in a place for a breath if you’re reading it out loud.”

Deadly punctuation

How do these misplaced or misused commas make their way into complicated contracts that have been drafted by professionals? Part of the problem, says Adams, is technology. “Drafting contracts has long been a function of copying and pasting from precedent contracts, and that results in a kind of heedlessness, a detachment from the nitty gritty of how you’ve expressed what you want to express in a contract,” he says. “It’s easy to miss this sort of problem.” 

In one extreme example, a misplaced comma was at the heart of a death-penalty trial

In one extreme example, a misplaced comma was at the heart of a death-penalty trial.  

Roger Casement, an Irish nationalist, was hanged in 1916 under the 1351 Treason Act. He had incited Irish prisoners of war being held in Germany to band together to fight against the British. The debate over whether Casement was guilty hinged on the wording of the 14th Century Treason Act and the use of a comma: with it, Casement’s actions in Germany were illegal; without it, he would get away with it.

 

Roger Casement, an Irish nationalist, was hanged in 1916 (Credit: Getty Images)

Despite Casement’s lead counsel’s assertion that “crimes should not depend on the significance of breaks or of commas”, and “if a crime depended on a comma, the matter should be determined in favour of the accused, and not of the Crown”, the court ruled that the comma mattered. Casement was found guilty and executed.

Though today life and death doesn’t hinge on the use of commas – but big money, insurance policies and environmental agreements certainly do.

For that reason, it’s important to carefully check any contracts we sign, the experts say – and that means not just dotting the Is and crossing the Ts but also making sure every comma is in the correct place.

People sign contracts not because they’ve negotiated their meanings, but based on their own understanding of what they’re agreeing to, explains Nobles. Contracts written by lawyers on behalf of a business might have a different meaning than what the lay person understands.

So it pays to pay attention. If a piece of punctuation seems out of place or introduces ambiguity, speak up.

“The purpose of a contract is to help people get the outcomes they both expected, and to know what they’re supposed to do and get from the other side,” says Kemp.

“If there’s a misunderstanding, you owe it to both of you to get it sorted out. Have the argument today, rather than tomorrow.”

It could prevent a lot of pain in the future.

[generalnegroni]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

first, thanks for the effort in your response and my apols that i have to cut this brief - mothersitting for the afternoon and so enjoying debates on the internet is not on the agenda.

i guess my insistence on this (and yes, obviously two nations would not, or should not go to war over a hyphen - that would be insane, although these days, who would be surprised. yes, much more to it).

i have a great mate who wrote the text book on grammar (westie - it was certainly used in WA for many years so you probably studied from it) that many education systems out here used for many years. try telling him punctuation does not matter. it paid for his house (yes, i understand that is not quite the impact we are discussing but he'd still argue tooth and nail as to its utmost importance). 

i grew up in a legal family - dad and many uncles etc, were solicitors, barristers, judges, one chief judge of the supreme court here - and to attempt to tell them punctuation is irrelevant? excommunication. i worked as a lawyer in Australia, the uk and the states and i never met a colleague who'd dismiss punctuation.

but it is only fair i give you some practical examples.

tell me that one roger casement was of the view that punctuation was not a matter of life and death.

and the cases which involved millions of dollars which turned on a simple comma or other punctuation mark. this includes a famous one but it is far from alone. 

 

The commas that cost companies millions

Share using Email

 

 

Share on Twitter

 

Share on FacebookShare on Linkedin

 

 

(Image credit: Getty Images)

 

For most people, a stray comma isn’t the end of the world. But in some cases, the exact placement of a punctuation mark can cost huge sums of money.

W

 

How much can a misplaced comma cost you?

If you’re texting a loved one or dashing off an email to a colleague, the cost of misplacing a piece of punctuation will be – at worst – a red face and a minor mix-up.

But for some, contentious commas can be a path to the poor house.

A dairy company in the US city of Portland, Maine settled a court case for $5m earlier this year because of a missing comma.

Three lorry drivers for Oakhurst Dairy claimed that they were owed years of unpaid overtime wages, all because of the way commas were used in legislation governing overtime payments.

The state’s laws declared that overtime wasn’t due for workers involved in “the canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: 1) agricultural produce; 2) meat and fish products; and 3) perishable foods”.

The drivers managed to successfully argue that because there was no comma after “shipment” and before “or distribution”, they were owed overtime pay. If a comma had been there, the law would have explicitly ruled out those who distribute perishable foods.

Story continues below

 

Workers load milk onto trucks at the Oakhurst dairy plant in 2013 (Credit: Getty Images)

Because there was confusion, the US Court of Appeals ruled in their favour, benefiting around 120 of the firm’s drivers. David Webbert, the lawyer who helped bring the case against the company, told reporters at the time that the inclusion of a comma in the clause “would have sunk our ship”. (He didn’t respond to interview requests from the BBC.)

The slightest misstep in punctuating a clause in a contract can have massive unintended consequences

The slip-up shows that the slightest misstep in punctuating a clause in a contract can have massive unintended consequences.

“Punctuation matters,” says Ken Adams, author of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting. But not all punctuation is made equal: contractual minefields are not seeded with semicolons or em-dashes (here’s one: – ) waiting to explode when tripped over.

“It boils down to commas,” says Adams. “They matter, and exactly how depends on the context.”

Delivering definition

Commas in contracts link separate clauses in a non-definitive way, leaving their reading open to interpretation. While a full stop is literally that – a full and complete stop to one thought or sentence, and the signal of the start of another – commas occupy a linguistic middle ground, and one that’s often muddled. “Commas are a proxy for confusion as to what part of a sentence relates to what,” Adams explains.

Commas occupy a linguistic middle ground, and one that’s often muddled

The English language is fluid, evolving and highly subjective. Arguments have been fought over the value of so-called Oxford commas (an optional comma before the word “and” or “or” at the end of a list). There might be good arguments on either side of the debate, but this doesn’t work for the law because there needs to be a definitive answer: yes or no. In high-stakes legal agreements, how commas are deployed is crucial to their meaning. And in the case of Oakhurst Dairy against its delivery drivers, the Oxford comma is judged to have favoured the latter’s meaning.

But just because you mean to say something, it doesn’t mean that a court will agree with you, says Jeff Nobles, a Texas-based appellate lawyer who was involved in an insurance case that hinged, in part, on the punctuation of a contract.

According to Nobles, most US courts will say it doesn’t really matter what the parties subjectively intended; it’s the objective intent in the written terms of their contract. “Punctuation sometimes will change the meaning of a sentence,” he says.

Nobles represented an insurance company in a Texas Supreme Court case concerning insurance coverage for a worker who died on the job.

Nobles argued successfully that punctuation mattered for a contractual indemnity provision, when the company tried to trigger coverage under its umbrella insurance policy after a subcontracted employee died on the job. It set a precedent in the state’s legal system, he believes.

He says US courts have become increasingly textual – “they’ve looked more and more at the words on the paper rather than the testimony of the people who used those words on the paper.”

Yet arguments over commas have been raging for more than a century.

‘An expensive comma’

In 1872, an American tariff law including an unwanted comma cost taxpayers nearly $2m (the equivalent of $40m today). The United States Tariff Act, as originally drafted in 1870, allowed “fruit plants, tropical and semi-tropical for the purpose of propagation or cultivation” to be exempt from import tariffs.

For an unknown reason, when revised two years later, a stray comma sneaked in between “fruit” and “plants”. Suddenly all tropical and semi-tropical fruits could be imported without any charge.

 

An 1872 tiff over tariffs and tropical fruit cost taxpayers $40m – all caused by a comma (Credit: Getty Images)

Members of the US Congress debated the issue and the problem was fixed – but not before the New York Times bemoaned the use of “An Expensive Comma”. It wouldn’t be the last such error.

Contract language is like software code: do it right and everything works smoothly. But make a typo and the whole thing falls apart

“Contract language is limited and stylised,” says Adams. He compares it to software code: do it right and everything works smoothly. But make a typo and the whole thing falls apart.

When errors are introduced into legal documents, they’re likely to be noticed far more than in any other form of writing, he says. “People are more prone to fighting over instances of syntactic ambiguity than in other kinds of writing.”

Muddying the waters

Of course, in some circumstances, those drafting contracts may want to introduce ambiguities. Getting different countries to sign up to the same principles can be challenging, particularly for climate change agreements.  

Early climate change conventions included this line:

“The Parties have a right to, and should, promote sustainable development.”

The sentence ensures those signing the agreement have the ability to promote sustainable development – and should do so.

But in its original draft, the second comma was placed after “promote”, not before it:

“The Parties have a right to, and should promote, sustainable development.”

Some countries weren’t happy with the original wording because they didn’t necessarily want to be locked into promoting sustainable development. Moving the comma kept the naysayers happy while placating those who wanted stronger action.

“By being slightly creative with punctuation, countries can feel like their interests have been addressed,” explains Stephen Cornelius, chief advisor on climate change with the WWF, who has represented the UK and EU at UN climate change negotiations. “You’re trying to get an agreement that people can substantially agree with.”

 

Most people try to make contract language as clear as possible – but sometimes leaving a bit of ambiguity can help both sides negotiate better (Credit: Getty Images)

Tricks of the trade

Such linguistic flexibility happens more often than you’d think.

“In diplomacy, even though you try to have a single agreement, it’s very common to change the meaning for different parties,” says climate change negotiator Laura Hanning Scarborough. “You can use terms like ‘inter alia’, or ‘this includes, amongst other things’ to blur the lines to include anything. You can use commas as part of that, too. There are so many language tricks you use to appease people.”

For most people, however, making sure that contracts are unambiguous is important. For that reason, it’s crucial to test contract language to breaking point by giving it to someone who will test its limits – someone who will read it in the most awkward, unhelpful way, says Tiffany Kemp, a commercial contracting trainer for the International Association for Contract and Commercial Management.

One of the biggest cases battled over a comma was a dispute between two Canadian telecommunications companies. Rogers Communications and Bell Aliant fought a legal battle worth CAD$1m ($760,000) over a contract to replace utility poles across the country.

The argument stemmed from a single sentence:

“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.”

The two sides argued that the comma after “five (5) year terms” meant something different: Bell Aliant said that the single year’s notice of termination applied at any time, Rogers that it only applied after the first five-year term ended.

This was important as Rogers had struck a great deal under their reading of the contract: when they signed a contract to lease the poles from Bell Aliant in 2002, they were paying just CAD$9.60 per pole. By 2004, the cost had nearly doubled. Bell Aliant, understandably, wanted to terminate the contract and renegotiate at the new, higher price. Rogers didn’t.

Successive courts were equally uncertain about the agreement: Canada’s Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission first declared in favour of Bell Aliant in 2006; a year later, it changed its mind after consulting the French language version of the contract, which didn’t include the same ambiguity.

This dispute wasn’t brought about by wilful ignorance, reckons Kemp. “Sometimes there are genuinely different understandings,” she explains. “That little comma was put in a place that you would put in a place for a breath if you’re reading it out loud.”

Deadly punctuation

How do these misplaced or misused commas make their way into complicated contracts that have been drafted by professionals? Part of the problem, says Adams, is technology. “Drafting contracts has long been a function of copying and pasting from precedent contracts, and that results in a kind of heedlessness, a detachment from the nitty gritty of how you’ve expressed what you want to express in a contract,” he says. “It’s easy to miss this sort of problem.” 

In one extreme example, a misplaced comma was at the heart of a death-penalty trial

In one extreme example, a misplaced comma was at the heart of a death-penalty trial.  

Roger Casement, an Irish nationalist, was hanged in 1916 under the 1351 Treason Act. He had incited Irish prisoners of war being held in Germany to band together to fight against the British. The debate over whether Casement was guilty hinged on the wording of the 14th Century Treason Act and the use of a comma: with it, Casement’s actions in Germany were illegal; without it, he would get away with it.

 

Roger Casement, an Irish nationalist, was hanged in 1916 (Credit: Getty Images)

Despite Casement’s lead counsel’s assertion that “crimes should not depend on the significance of breaks or of commas”, and “if a crime depended on a comma, the matter should be determined in favour of the accused, and not of the Crown”, the court ruled that the comma mattered. Casement was found guilty and executed.

Though today life and death doesn’t hinge on the use of commas – but big money, insurance policies and environmental agreements certainly do.

For that reason, it’s important to carefully check any contracts we sign, the experts say – and that means not just dotting the Is and crossing the Ts but also making sure every comma is in the correct place.

People sign contracts not because they’ve negotiated their meanings, but based on their own understanding of what they’re agreeing to, explains Nobles. Contracts written by lawyers on behalf of a business might have a different meaning than what the lay person understands.

So it pays to pay attention. If a piece of punctuation seems out of place or introduces ambiguity, speak up.

“The purpose of a contract is to help people get the outcomes they both expected, and to know what they’re supposed to do and get from the other side,” says Kemp.

“If there’s a misunderstanding, you owe it to both of you to get it sorted out. Have the argument today, rather than tomorrow.”

It could prevent a lot of pain in the future.

 

Ah, but I too am a legally minded man, my dear Ken. My office is in barrister’s chambers on Bedford Row, and though I cannot claim to be a member of that noble profession, I have been offered pupilage should I ever change my mind. I myself confine my eventual aspiration to the humble role of fabulist. 

 

Since we’re comparing genealogies, like Homer’s heroes strutting on the plain of Troy, I’ll admit I’m not deficient on that point either. On my Mother’s side I’ll claim a High Court judge for a grandfather, a leading barrister for a cousin, and she herself ex-Parliamentary Counsel, having drafted or redrafted half the UK’s legislation including the 2009 Companies Act. My paternal grandfather was a solicitor to the Greek shipping firms, and awarded medals by the Greek merchant navy for services to shipping, though rather cheap looking ones (timeo danaos et dona ferentes). My father himself is a not unsuccessful solicitor, having served as general counsel to a large company for many years.

 

Thank you too for your examples, which highlight not the wisdom of the deification of grammar, but it’s foolishness. Perhaps this serves to demonstrate the primacy of English law, which places intention paramount in contracts, and substance over form. Let us not then be slaves to language, but it’s masters, and let our meanings shine from our eyes, the windows to men’s souls, and not our clumsy hands and tongues. 

 

I myself prefer the Greeks and romans, whose achievements in law (from which our legal systems are descended) and the other arts were not hampered by their total lack of punctuation. Indeed, all modern Latin and Ancient Greek texts are heavily doctored to reflect modern punctuation, and would originally have been written without even that lowliest and most unnoticed piece of punctuation, the space, and with only the position of the verb in the sentence to indicate the conclusion of a phrase.

 

LETUSNOTTHEREFOREWITHEXACTPUNCTUATIONTOOMUCHBECONCERNED

 

YOUANDYOURMOTHERAVERYPLEASANTEVENINGTOWISHMEALLOW

[Ken Gargett]

Forgive me but I have no intention of getting into whatever ‘legally minded’ means.

I had no intention of comparing genealogies – or perhaps ancestries would be the more appropriate term and like punctuation, the meaning of words does matter – and little interest in doing so, as my comments were merely to give background to why I grew up believing that punctuation matters. nothing else, but what I will say is that if you are telling me that none of these relatives, all so obviously well versed in the law and no doubt many other things, disagree with you on your statement – which is what our issue is – that “Punctuation has never upset anyone outside of this thread”, I simply do not believe that for a second. I don’t mean to disparage whatever ‘legally minded’ means but the positions you have detailed are actually ‘legally qualified’. It matters. I have no doubt that they understand the importance of punctuation. And I do not believe that these people would dispute that.

But your comment has then moved to an opinion piece. Fair enough. But let’s be honest, all this ‘let our meanings shine from our eyes’ and so on and on is at best, simply an attempt to divert from the issue, and being less generous, complete crap.

Using the romans etc, as support might suit your argument but is a bit pointless. The roman culture was one of oratory, speaking, much more so than what we have today. A totally different situation. Language evolves. And punctuation has evolved with it. And gained in importance as it has done so. 

Anyway, you are more than welcome to your opinion, of course, but no matter how you attempt to divert, nothing of what you have said has given me the slightest reason to consider that your statement is anything other than misguided and incorrect.