Misworded 'Stop a School Bus' Statute Temporarily Allows Reckless Driving in Virginia, Legal Blog Watch, law.com, Dec. 3, 2010. The statute:
A person is guilty of reckless driving who fails to stop, when approaching from any direction, any school bus which is stopped on any highway, private road or school driveway for the purpose of taking on or discharging children.The defendant argued successfully that the law didn't require him to stop -- it just said the bus should be stopped. The judge thought the statute was missing an "at" and should have read:
A person is guilty of reckless driving who fails to stop, when approaching from any direction, at any school bus which is stopped . . .
One of the blog comments suggests a comma fix instead:
A person is guilty of reckless driving who fails to stop when approaching, from any direction, any school bus which is stopped . . .
Delaware Chancery Court Addresses Confusion Caused by Indefinite Article, Koncision, Dec. 9, 2010. A contract provided that one of the parties could change the number of shares it converted by giving "a" notice. Is that one or more than one? The contract language:
The "Maximum Number" . . . may be increased upon expiration of a 65-Day Notice period (the “Notice Period”) after Fletcher delivers a notice (a “65-Day Notice”) to the Company designating a greater Maximum Number. A 65-Day Notice may be given at any time.The Delaware Chancery Court held that "the plain language of § 6(b) unambiguously indicates that the parties intended that Fletcher could issue one or more 65-Day Notices under the Agreement." The blogger disagrees that it was unambiguous -- but also suggests how the drafters could have avoided the dispute.
The moral of these stories? Be really, really careful when drafting. Try to spot potential ambiguities before there's a dispute!
Graphics: School bus image from Federal Citizen Information Center. Delaware Court of Chancery logo from the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment