<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The $2 Million Comma</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/08/07/the-2-million-comma/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/08/07/the-2-million-comma/</link>
	<description>any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:33:03 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rob Hyndman</title>
		<link>http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/08/07/the-2-million-comma/comment-page-1/#comment-9270</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Hyndman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:28:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/08/07/the-2-million-comma/#comment-9270</guid>
		<description>Good question.  I&#039;d guess half of the lawyers reviewing someone else&#039;s draft would catch it.  That&#039;s a SWAG, but my gut is that about that many do not pay much attention to the &#039;boilerplate&#039;.  But if it&#039;s a form that is used and reused, which this would seem to be (presumably one needs to lease poles in many locations, from many people), this is something that would almost always get picked up - because so many eyes would have passed over the form over time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good question.  I&#8217;d guess half of the lawyers reviewing someone else&#8217;s draft would catch it.  That&#8217;s a SWAG, but my gut is that about that many do not pay much attention to the &#8216;boilerplate&#8217;.  But if it&#8217;s a form that is used and reused, which this would seem to be (presumably one needs to lease poles in many locations, from many people), this is something that would almost always get picked up &#8211; because so many eyes would have passed over the form over time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Lucier</title>
		<link>http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/08/07/the-2-million-comma/comment-page-1/#comment-9268</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Lucier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:10:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/08/07/the-2-million-comma/#comment-9268</guid>
		<description>This reminds me of an excellent book by Lynne Truss called &quot;Eats, Shoots &amp; Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation&quot;.  I highly recommend it.  Check out the Wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_&amp;_Leaves

I would think this is just bad legal wording that should have been rewritten before signoff.  Rob, from a lawyer&#039;s perspective, how many good lawyers do you think would catch something like this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This reminds me of an excellent book by Lynne Truss called &#8220;Eats, Shoots &amp; Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation&#8221;.  I highly recommend it.  Check out the Wikipedia entry here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_&amp;_Leaves" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_&amp;_Leaves</a></p>
<p>I would think this is just bad legal wording that should have been rewritten before signoff.  Rob, from a lawyer&#8217;s perspective, how many good lawyers do you think would catch something like this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary</title>
		<link>http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/08/07/the-2-million-comma/comment-page-1/#comment-8910</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/08/07/the-2-million-comma/#comment-8910</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;...effectively frustrated the obvious purpose of the reference in the clause to five year terms.&lt;/i&gt; That was my first reaction, too.  But my second was that this is a very large contract between very sophisticated parties.  It is not the CRTC&#039;s job to rewrite their contract for them -- and, because this is most certainly a question of law, the interpretation is very subject to appeal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8230;effectively frustrated the obvious purpose of the reference in the clause to five year terms.</i> That was my first reaction, too.  But my second was that this is a very large contract between very sophisticated parties.  It is not the CRTC&#8217;s job to rewrite their contract for them &#8212; and, because this is most certainly a question of law, the interpretation is very subject to appeal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
