Today in downtown Grand Rapids is the “World of Winter Festival” where Downtown Grand Rapids, Inc. provides a “Snow Globe” experience. Very colorful. A lot of fun downtown.
Today I read an article posted by the ABAJournal that illustrates the profound impact on word and grammar usage in contracts and legislation.
As the ABAJournal reported:
“A dairy company in Maine has agreed to pay $5 million to its drivers after a federal appeals court last year found ambiguity in a state overtime law because it lacked an Oxford comma.”
The ABA Journal reported in its story last year Oxford comma issue benefits drivers in overtime case:
“FOR WANT OF A COMMA”
“Ambiguity caused by lack of a comma in a law on overtime pay has benefited Maine dairy delivery drivers.”
“The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out the issue in the first sentence of its March 13 decision(PDF). ‘For want of a comma, we have this case,” the court said in an opinion by Judge David Barron.
“Because the statute was ambiguous, it should be interpreted in favor of the dairy workers who distribute milk but do not pack it, the appeals court found.”
As a result – a 5 Million Dollar Comma.
A SINGLE WORD CAN BE LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT TO SHIFT RISK
A few years back I wrote about how the words used in a contract dispute significantly impacted the rights and obligations in a business dispute, based upon the Michigan Supreme Court’s interpretation.
The Michigan Supreme Court made a distinction between the inclusion of the word “in” in a Title Company’s Closing Protection Letter in a prior case, and the “exclusion” of the word “in” in that instant case. In the Court’s determination:
“Although the distinction is slight—the only difference is the word “in”—the distinction is legally significant.”
Words Matter.
E-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com
Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka
Purpose Driven General Counsel 