*The $2-million comm**a; Rogers Communications thought it had a deal 
with Aliant that was rock solid. But then Aliant changed its mind, and a 
comma in the contract let them do it. Now Rogers might pay dearly for 
that pesky punctuation *

The Globe and Mail <javascript:void(0)>
GRANT ROBERTSON
MEDIA REPORTER
760 words
7 August 2006
B1
English
All material copyright Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. or its licensors. 
All rights reserved.

It could be the most costly piece of punctuation in Canada.

A grammatical blunder may force Rogers Communications Inc. to pay an 
extra $2.13-million to use utility poles in the Maritimes after the 
placement of a comma in a contract permitted the deal's cancellation.

The controversial comma sent lawyers and telecommunications regulators 
scrambling for their English textbooks in a bitter 18-month dispute that 
serves as an expensive reminder of the importance of punctuation.

Rogers thought it had a five-year deal with Aliant Inc. to string 
Rogers' cable lines across thousands of utility poles in the Maritimes 
for an annual fee of $9.60 per pole. But early last year, Rogers was 
informed that the contract was being cancelled and the rates were going 
up. Impossible, Rogers thought, since its contract was iron-clad until 
the spring of 2007 and could potentially be renewed for another five years.

Armed with the rules of grammar and punctuation, Aliant disagreed. The 
construction of a single sentence in the 14-page contract allowed the 
entire deal to be scrapped with only one-year's notice, the company argued.

Language buffs take note --- Page 7 of the contract states: The 
agreement "shall continue in force for a period of five years from the 
date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms, unless 
and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party."

Rogers' intent in 2002 was to lock into a long-term deal of at least 
five years. But when regulators with the Canadian Radio-television and 
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) parsed the wording, they reached 
another conclusion.

The validity of the contract and the millions of dollars at stake all 
came down to one point --- the second comma in the sentence.

Had it not been there, the right to cancel wouldn't have applied to the 
first five years of the contract and Rogers would be protected from the 
higher rates it now faces.

"Based on the rules of punctuation," the comma in question "allows for 
the termination of the [contract] at any time, without cause, upon 
one-year's written notice," the regulator said.

Rogers was dumbfounded. The company said it never would have signed a 
contract to use roughly 91,000 utility poles that could be cancelled on 
such short notice. Its lawyers tried in vain to argue the intent of the 
deal trumped the significance of a comma. "This is clearly not what the 
parties intended," Rogers said in a letter to the CRTC.

But the CRTC disagreed. And the consequences are significant.

The contract would have shielded Rogers from rate increases that will 
see its costs jump as high as $28.05 per pole. Instead, the company will 
likely end up paying about $2.13-million more than expected, based on 
rough calculations.

Despite the victory, Aliant won't reap the bulk of the proceeds. The 
poles are mostly owned by Fredericton-based utility NB Power, which 
contracted out the administration of the business to Aliant at the time 
the contract was signed.

Neither Rogers nor Aliant could be reached for comment on the ruling. In 
one of several letters to the CRTC, Aliant called the matter "a basic 
rule of punctuation," taking a swipe at Rogers' assertion that the comma 
could be ignored.

"This is a classic case of where the placement of a comma has great 
importance," Aliant said.

The comma conflict

The disputed 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."

How Rogers reads it: The contract is good for five years and is 
automatically renewed for successive five-year terms. The deal can not 
be terminated within the first five-year term.

How Aliant reads it: The contract can be cancelled at any time provided 
one-year notice is given.

What the experts say: The presence of the second comma means the 
conditions of cancelling the contract apply to both the initial 
five-year term and subsequent five-year terms.


                -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
  [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
         write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]

For the list archives and information about the organization,
    its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
              http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
                 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-