那个CASE看过，关于合同是否自动续签，还是需要双方同意才视为续签。。。后来ROGERS输了。。。
ROGERS够郁闷了。
The Two Million Dollar Comma
A comma cost Rogers Communications Inc. an extra $2.13 million in fees for the use of utility poles.
In the spring of 2002, Rogers signed what it thought was a five-year deal with Aliant, Inc. for Rogers to use Aliant's utility poles across the Maritimes for cable lines, for an annual fee of $9.60 per pole. The relevant section in the contract read:
[This contract] 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.
(Note the two commas in the sentence.)
In early 2005, Rogers was told that the contract was cancelled, and that the rates were being increased, up to $28.05 per pole, which would come to about $2.13 million more. Aliant claimed that the contract allowed them to terminate the contract at any time. Rogers disagreed. The dispute went to the CRTC, which agreed with Aliant, "based on the rules of punctuation". The existence of the second comma "allows for the termination of the [contract] at any time, without cause, upon one-year's written notice".
Analysis:Aliant and the CRTC were correct in their interpretation. The pair of commas marks the words between them as a parenthetical phrase, meaning that it could be removed from the sentence (along with the pair of commas) without affecting the flow or meaning of the sentence. If we do so, the sentence becomes:
[This contract] shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.
which does clearly give Aliant (as well as Rogers) the right to terminate the contract at any time.
Had the second comma not been there,
[This contract] 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.
the sentence would then have read as Rogers intended:
1. that the contract continue for five years from the date it was signed (with no possibility of termination for this first five-year period).
and
2. that after the first five years, the contract would continue for five year terms, with the possibility of termination (with one year's prior notice in writing by either party) only in this subsequent period past the first five years.
In one of its letters to the CRTC, Aliant wrote (without exaggeration), "This is a classic case of where the placement of a comma has great importance".
While it is unlikely that a misplaced punctuation mark will cost most people anywhere near two million dollars, the lesson should be taken to heart. Punctuation imparts meaning, and poorly-used punctuation can change the meaning of sentences significantly.
