# Grammar people and faultfinders: What do you make of this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 3, 2004, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362 "2004-03-03T18:57:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/21 "2004-03-04T19:19:06Z")
I’m gonna give this thread a little bump. [Saunters over to the big red BUMP button. . . and . . .] ---
**Author:** ![ReverseCowgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/cc9497/32.png) [@ReverseCowgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ReverseCowgirl)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/22 "2004-03-04T20:03:44Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > One of the things that I am trying to determine is whether I can argue that the $150 cap applies to all of the $10 per day charges. > > So let’s try a more bare-bones hypo: > > Ms. Tenant does not pay any rent in March or in April. On April 22, the late fess she owes are: > > a. $300 > > b. $150 > > c. $225 > > d. $450 > > e. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > > Show your work. c. $150 for the first month, $75 for the second. ---
**Author:** ![FisherQueen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@FisherQueen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FisherQueen)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/23 "2004-03-04T20:31:48Z")
Suddenly, I understand why my linguistics professor was called in to court so often. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/24 "2004-03-04T20:54:20Z")
> [@FisherQueen](#): > > Suddenly, I understand why my linguistics professor was called in to court so often. You said it. ---
**Author:** ![ReverseCowgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/cc9497/32.png) [@ReverseCowgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ReverseCowgirl)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/25 "2004-03-05T13:17:57Z")
I can’t believe they can get away with enforcing suge an ambiguous lease provision. ---
**Author:** ![ReverseCowgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/cc9497/32.png) [@ReverseCowgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ReverseCowgirl)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/26 "2004-03-05T13:55:40Z")
> [@ReverseCowgirl](#): > > I can’t believe they can get away with enforcing suge an ambiguous lease provision. Morever, I can’t believe that I used the non-word “suge” in place of the workaday word “such.” ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/27 "2004-03-05T15:15:44Z")
I’m not sure that they will be able to enforce it, at least the way they want to. Remember, ambiguities in contracts are construed against the drafter. [contra proferentem](http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/unidroit.contract.principles.1994/4.6) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/28 "2004-03-10T16:41:40Z")
Bump. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/29 "2004-03-10T17:33:09Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Mods: Feel free to place this post wherever it truly belongs. > > People of the SDMB. The sentence: > > The question: Is this sentence ambiguous? I’m not asking whether you get what they are trying to say. Rather, I am asking if the sentence can be understood to have more than one meaning. And no, the sentence is not my creation. I will refrain from posting a long tedious discussion of dependant and independant clauses, and limit my response to offering some real world advice. While it is true that ambiguities in contracts are sometimes construed in a manner that is beneficial to the non-drafting party, it is also true that few judges will care about the alleged linguistic particulars. Most judges will “get what they are trying to say” and will rule accordingly. In other words, do not expect that linguistic or symantic arguments will be considered persuasive in most courts of law. It is not a court of linguistics. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/30 "2004-03-10T17:51:08Z")
Personally, I’d read it and then move. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ReverseCowgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/cc9497/32.png) [@ReverseCowgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ReverseCowgirl)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2004, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/31 "2004-03-12T13:27:11Z")
How is the case going? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2004, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/32 "2004-03-12T13:27:55Z")
> [@ReverseCowgirl](#): > > How is the case going? It might settle. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362/33 "2004-03-12T13:39:00Z")
[QUOTE=askeptic] I will refrain from posting a long tedious discussion of dependant and independant clauses.[\QUOTE] That’s a shame, because that is what I was looking for. > [@](#): > > While it is true that ambiguities in contracts are sometimes construed in a manner that is beneficial to the non-drafting party, it is also true that few judges will care about the alleged linguistic particulars. In my experience, it depends on how it is explained to them. I have won dozens of cases based on “the linguistic particulars.” And lost a few of them that way, too. This is really the essence of what being a lawyer is about. My criminal law professor once said, “the puzzle is the answer, and one day you will be called upon to argumentatively exploit the ambiguities.” And that is what I do. > [@](#): > > It is not a court of linguistics. You are right, and the \*\*law \*\* is rife with interpretive principles for dealing with ambiguites, ambiguities in statutes, rules, and **contracts**. The relevant rule in this case is that an ambiguity in a contract is to be construed against the drafter. And it is the jury that gets to construe it, not the judge. That is why I put the question the way that I did. I’m looking for objective input about whether the contract language can be understood to have more than one meaning. The gist of this thread is that it can. In that case, the meaning least favorable to the drafter must be used. Thanks for the advice, though. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-people-and-faultfinders-what-do-you-make-of-this/232362.md?page=1)