I’m gonna give this thread a little bump. [Saunters over to the big red BUMP button. . . and . . .]
c. $150 for the first month, $75 for the second.
Suddenly, I understand why my linguistics professor was called in to court so often.
You said it.
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.”
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.
Bump.
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.
Personally, I’d read it and then move. 
How is the case going?
It might settle.
[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.
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.
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. 