Ah-HA! I previously wrote on the contract dispute between Rogers and Aliant, and how a misplaced (or maybe intentionally placed by Aliant but overlooked by Rogers) comma means that Aliant has the right to terminate the lease Rogers has on thousands of telephone poles in New Brunswick.
Well now Rogers is hitting back - en francais. In this Globe and Mail story, they argue that the French version of the contract does not have the same punctuation and conveys the meaning they (Rogers) thought the contract said in the first place. The contract was originally created and then translated, but each contract was individually signed by both parties.
My thought - if the contracts say different things when they are supposed to be the same, wouldn’t BOTH now be declared void? My other thought - how the heck do lawyers sleep at night? :)
