Never Underestimate The Price Of A Comma!

• Published date: 21 July 2022
• Subject Matter: Strategy, Knowledge Management
• Law Firm: PDT Solicitors
• Author: Noel Ruddy

Who hasn't sent an email and on reading it again realises it doesn't quite make sense? These days we tend to be relaxed in our use of grammar, particularly in emails, so long as the message is clear. Generally speaking, if you send a grammatically incorrect email the cost to you will be embarrassment rather than any financial liability.

However, grammar's importance falls right at the heart of legal practice. The misuse of grammar can be a hindering factor as to how lawyers are heard or interpreted or understood. Achieving the gold standard in clarity and meaning, if such a standard exists, is often difficult due to the complex nature of grammar. Rules can often conflict with each other and can often cause more, rather than less, ambiguity.

It may be surprising to hear that even the best lawyers catch their breath when a case comes before the courts and the use of grammar is cast under the spotlight. One such case came before the American courts and concerned the use of the Oxford comma.

The Oxford comma

The Oxford comma, also called a serial or series comma, is the final comma placed in a list of three or more terms. For example, a list of three dogs may be punctuated as "Poodle, Bulldog and Cavalier" (without the serial comma) or "Poodle, Bulldog, and Cavalier" (with the serial comma).

The use of the Oxford comma is regarded by many as stylistic, meaning that some style guides will demand its use whilst others won't. British English allows constructions with or without the Oxford comma. This gives rise to a dilemma as, in certain cases, use of the Oxford comma can avoid ambiguity and in others it can introduce it.

Oakhurst Dairy

This brings us to the case of Oakhurst Dairy. Oakhurst Dairy's employees were members of a trade union who took up the complaint of their drivers over payment of overtime. Following a long legal battle, which went as far as the U.S. Court of Appeal, Oakhurst Dairy agreed to settle with their employees. The decision against Oakhurst Dairy arose as a result of an omitted comma from the drafting of a local law.

The local law in question determined whether the activities of drivers qualified for overtime pay or not. It stated that the following activities were not eligible for overtime:

"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:

1. Agricultural produce;
2. Meat and fish products; and
3. Perishable foods."

The parties to this case proposed different interpretation of...