What effect does bad English have on warnings / disclaimers?

Question

I've come across more than one case of ill-phrased 'legalese' and often wondered where the line is with respect to enforcibalilty etc. For example, a McDonalds promotion which disclaimed: "Offer ends October 30 or while supplies last". Does nonsense invalidate it, or is it a case of clear intent conveyed in muddled language?

I was reminded of this by a sign I saw on a recent trip:

Yes, we know what they mean, but really, is this enforceable?

I've always found signs that say "Authorized entry only" to be funny -- isn't that a tautology? — Barmar, Oct 21 '20 at 14:10
How would you interpret this to allow you to enter without permission? The sign itself if taken literally doesn't mean anything (since trespassing already means entry without permission), but if you disregard the sign then you still aren't allowed to trespass, so that wouldn't permit you to do anything. This is like a normal "No Trespassing" sign, which itself doesn't mean anything since that's always the law — Kevin, Oct 21 '20 at 15:52
Just to confuse (or clarify) matters further: "I was a bit worried that I was maybe trespassing where I didn't belong, but then I saw a sign that clearly stated no trespassing, so I was reassured." Out-of-universe, if the sign-writer meant "Thou shalt not trespass," they should really have written it that way. But sign-writers never write things out, and lawyers/judges know this (and know that you know this), and so the quoted excuse simply doesn't work in real life. — Quuxplusone, Oct 21 '20 at 15:57
I am having trouble figuring out what is bad English in your post? Both the sign and Mcdonald's disclaimer seem to be valid and grammatical English... — MonkeyZeus, Oct 21 '20 at 16:37
If we go by the Flesch Kincaid calculation then the McDonald's disclaimer is at a 7th grade reading level. However, the no trespassing sign registers as college-level. Regardless, one could reasonably expect that "No Trespassing" is common enough and easily understandable that you can expect people to not tresspass. — MonkeyZeus, Oct 21 '20 at 16:43
Your question almost boils down to "How much does my reading comprehension affect the enforce-ability of legalese?" — MonkeyZeus, Oct 21 '20 at 16:44
i'm struggling to see how the sign pictured could possibly be misinterpreted. — eps, Oct 21 '20 at 16:49
@eps it implies you can trespass with written permission, the definition of trespass is to enter a property without permission, so therefore if you have permission you wouldn't be trespassing anymore. You can't "trespass with permission". — Ron Beyer, Oct 21 '20 at 20:03
@RonBeyer maybe the County Commissioners aren't actually able to authorize you to enter there, so you would be trespassing even with their authorization. written. You could similarly have a notice saying "No trespassing is allowed into the houses of without authorization from the local crime syndicate" — Ángel, Oct 21 '20 at 23:24
I once saw a such a sign where the bad English actually reversed the (presumably) intended meaning, in a Hilton hotel car park: “Liability for damage is not excepted.” — Mike Scott, Oct 22 '20 at 12:47
@MonkeyZeus the McDonald's one is nonsense since, taken literally, it is saying that the offer ends while supplies last. That is neither grammatical (you can't end something while something else, you can only end it when something else happens) nor does it make sense since the offer can't end while supplies last. What they meant to say is something like "This offer is valid until October 30 or while supplies last" or alternatively "Offer ends October 30 or when supplies run out". — terdon, Oct 22 '20 at 14:35
@MonkeyZeus He means "poorly worded" or "confusingly worded", not ungrammatical. Since they're grammatical they admit a literal interpretation which may be different from the intended meaning, or could be interpreted as nonsense. — Barmar, Oct 22 '20 at 15:02
The one that gets me is the insurance ads claiming they "could save you up to 15% or more on car insurance". So, it could save you 15%, or more than 15%, or less than 15%, or it could simply not save you anything. That makes it a completely empty statement since it literally encompasses all possible numbers. — Darrel Hoffman, Oct 22 '20 at 15:04
@terdon The McDonalds' one can have the clauses reversed, to demonstrate that it does have a valid parsing: "Offer while supplies last or ends October 30". The important thing is that the elliptically omitted phrase is solely "Offer", and not "Offer ends": "[Offer] {[ends October 30] or [while supplies last]}". Yes, though, it is poorly phrased and potentially ambiguous. — Chronocidal, Oct 23 '20 at 17:20
@Chronocidal by that argument, "close your eyes, then look at me" is as valid as "look at me, then close your eyes". The point is that the clauses were not reversed and order matters. As written, it made no sense. Of course we can all guess what was intended, but what was written was nonsense. That said, I don't see how your reversal is any better either. Offer while? Even "Offer valid while supplies last or ends* October 30" is not grammatical. You'd need "Offer valid while supplies last or until October 30". — terdon, Oct 23 '20 at 17:43
@KevinWells a sign saying "no trespassing" does have legal effect, however, because the law governing trespass operates differently in the absence or presence of such a sign. — phoog, Oct 24 '20 at 18:25

score 29 · Answer 1 · answered Oct 21 '20 at 01:14

29

Law does not have an all-encompassing syntax and structure that, if not followed, makes it null and void. If a reasonable person could determine that (in the example of the sign you have) you are required to get written permission from any or all of the Paulding County Commissioners, then the sign is enforceable. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the sign you are displaying, it is reasonably clear.

If, for example the notice contains an ambiguity or unclear phrase, the "spirit" of the law or sign is upheld. If the sign had said something to the effect of "No trespassing without permission". It doesn't say who you need permission from, but you can reasonably ascertain that you must have permission from somebody in control of the land.

There is no line in the sand here. Often when a dispute in a contract comes up where it could be interpreted more than one way, it is often interpreted in favor of the person who did not write the contract.

"Offer ends October 30 or while supplies last"

Isn't really "ill-phrased" either. I assure you that those statements are vetted by highly paid lawyers from many jurisdictions. I'm not sure what "nonsense" you would be referring to in there. If the vendor runs out of promotional materials the promotion ends... If they had said "free hats to the first 100 customers on December 31st", you can't show up as the 101st customer and demand a hat, nor could you show up on January 1st (even if there were not 100 customers the previous day) and demand one either.

answered Oct 21 '20 at 01:14

Ron Beyer

9,235
1
30
37

17

An offer ending is a point in time, "while supplies last" is an interval of time. – DJohnM Oct 21 '20 at 02:39
10

The sign says you can trespass (enter without permission) only if you get permission from the County Commissioners – DJohnM Oct 21 '20 at 02:41
1

@DJohnM The intent is still reasonably clear, maybe it should say "No trespassing. Written permission from County Commissioners required to enter" but they couldn't fit it on the sign. Either way the intent is "No Trespassing" and "Written permission required"... – Ron Beyer Oct 21 '20 at 02:58
19

"Offer ends [..] while supplies last" definitely sounds wrong, as the idea seems to be that the offer doesn't end until after the supplies have stopped lasting. Or, rather, that it's valid while supplies last. Somehow it sounds like an earlier version would have said just that, and then someone only partially modified it. @DJohnM, as for that one, logically it's impossible to enter without permission if you do have a permission, but the sign doesn't prohibit entering with a permission, so it's a non-issue, even if weird. :) Should say "No entry without permission ...", I guess? – ilkkachu Oct 21 '20 at 08:32
2

I parse the second as "[Promotion...] (Offer ends October 30) or (while supplies last)" – Caleth Oct 21 '20 at 09:04
3

In which case, @Caleth, it should be "Offer ends October 30 or when supplies run out." – TRiG Oct 21 '20 at 10:36
6

@TRiG that's still joining the "Offer ends" part to the "while supplies last" part. "Free cake while supplies last" is a well phrased offer, as is "Free cake Offer ends October 30" – Caleth Oct 21 '20 at 10:42
24

Are you sure about well-paid lawyers vetting these things? The phrasing seems needlessly sloppy. – Nat Oct 21 '20 at 14:23
2

There is no way a lawyer vetted the wording, and I'm confused as to why you can't see its wrongness. Though I do agree with your main point that it doesn't matter. – Asteroids With Wings Oct 21 '20 at 21:45
1

@Caleth You can parse it that way if you like, but that's not what it says. – Asteroids With Wings Oct 21 '20 at 21:46
The wording might be perfectly fine from a legal standpoint (IANAL), but it's definitely awkward English as other commenters point out. "Offer ends October 30 or while supplies last" implies (if taken literally) that the offer will end while supplies last, which is clearly not the intent. Of course people are so used to this type of legalese that even though it can be awkward and even logically contradictory, they still understand its intent. – bob Oct 22 '20 at 20:40
1

@Nat Don't assume that lawyers are any better at grammar than the general population. I've seen plenty of experienced lawyers whose grammar was indistinguishable from that of an uneducated Joe-on-the-street. What these things need is to be vetted by an English teacher. – bta Oct 22 '20 at 22:13
@Nat I'm thinking these examples passed muster because they wrote it and their judgement is clouded by the underlying knowledge of what they were trying to say (the same reason students get someone else to proofread their essays). Ignoring everything you know and reading something with a blank mind (as an outsider would) is a hard skill to learn. – bta Oct 22 '20 at 22:26
1

"Law does not have an all-encompassing syntax and structure that, if not followed, makes it null and void." Can we repeat that a little louder for all the would-be Sovereign Citizens in the audience? – Shadur-don't-feed-the-AI Oct 23 '20 at 07:40

Ryan M · Answer 2 · 2020-10-21T06:43:27.263

23

It's only a problem if it's ambiguous or unclear.

Courts contend with grammatical mistakes and typos when interpreting text all the time, and have ways of determining what they mean—in fact, determining what text means is a large portion of what courts do. Even typographical errors (often called "scrivener's errors") that change a contract's meaning can be corrected with evidence of what it was supposed to say.

A good example of a borderline case of bad grammar is a Virginia law that required drivers to "stop...any school bus [that was letting out children]." Note the missing "at". The trial court judge found that it was obvious what the statute was supposed to say, but the appeals court found that because it was unambiguous (albeit unreasonable), the law should be interpreted literally. How literally such things are interpreted varies by jurisdiction, as some follow the "absurdity doctrine" that states that when choosing between possible meanings, to eliminate any that would produce absurd results.

This sign stating that trespassing is forbidden without written permission, however, does not have such ambiguities. The fact that it isn't possible to trespass with written permission doesn't make it any less clear that you are not allowed to trespass without written permission.

The McDonald's offer is also clear: all interpretations other than "the offer ends Oct 30 or when supplies run out, whichever happens first" make no sense (an offer can't end "while supplies last"), and no reasonable person would interpret it that way (which is the general standard for interpreting the meaning of text in an advertisement).

edited Oct 21 '20 at 06:43

answered Oct 21 '20 at 04:11

Ryan M

10,274
2
45
63

1

I find the notion that "the text as written doesn't make sense, so it must be read as what would make sense" to be a bit strange. I get it, but it makes my head hurt. – Jim Mack Oct 21 '20 at 14:50
@JimMack Try to understand English as a strictly illogical language and it makes a lot more sense, at least in my experience. There's a book called Frindle that, while a children's book, still makes a good point on the efficacy of language. Quite literally intent and conveyance of that intent/meaning is all that matters, what's "logical" language in one region/dialect could be nonsensical in another, and that's alright as long as the intended meaning is conveyed to those using the language to communicate. – TCooper Oct 21 '20 at 18:20
2

The McDonald's offer never said anything about "whichever happens first". It is true that an offer can't end "while supplies last", so that leaves open the possibility of poor wording. After all, why end the offer on October 30 if they still have supplies? What are they going to keep them for? They might as well continue to give them away after October 30. – pacoverflow Oct 21 '20 at 18:55
Perhaps the school bus law meant that if a bus was letting out children, drivers should stop the bus, since it is clearly dangerous for a school bus to let out children while in motion. – Christopher King Oct 21 '20 at 20:26
3

"an offer can't end "while supplies last" -- sure it can. That's exactly what happens once the Oct. 30 condition has been reached and not all offers have been redeemed. – Herohtar Oct 21 '20 at 21:23
Maybe the law should be written in lojban. – gerrit Oct 22 '20 at 07:45

score 11 · Answer 3 · edited Oct 24 '20 at 12:50

11

I would have liked to comment on this, but not enough reputation...

I assure you that those statements are vetted by highly paid lawyers

I think it's a clash of culture. The OP's view on these signs seems grounded in pure logic (possibly computer science?) I assure you that from a purely logical perspective, both statements are indeed nonesense.

"Offer ends October 30 or while supplies last" literally means: "while supplies last, the offer ends, and also ends on October 30"

If I was writing this as computer code, the offer would NEVER be applicable.

The intended meaning (based on "common sense", not pure logic) obviously is "Offer will stop being valid by October 30, or when supplies run out, whichever occurs first"

Similarly, "getting permission to trespass" is a logical impossibility, since trespassing means entering without permission: you can't get permission to enter without permission, you can only get permission to enter. And if you don't get permission, it's trespassing.

Looking at these statements with "computer eyes" makes them sound illogical and inapplicable. But... The law clearly is meant for the common person, and to them the intent remains clear, despite the (demonstrably) garbled logic.

... It does make the statements incomprehensible to non-neurotypical people, though. So it might be argued there is a problem here in term of accessibility (in juridictions where such concept applies)

edited Oct 24 '20 at 12:50

Community

1

answered Oct 21 '20 at 08:43

Wandering Ex-Academic

111
2

1

Thanks. I do have a strong bias toward logic, and for clear language. I get that intent matters. I just wondered how far you can stretch 'intent' to cover the illogical. – Jim Mack Oct 21 '20 at 12:50
8

I don't believe all of these are vetted by lawyers of any pay grade; I think most signage and brochure copy is written by small teams who don't want to correct their boss, individual workers with average language skills, or, worst of all, committees. I have been on workplace policy-writing committees and frequently pointed out large gaps in wording that would have allowed complete avoidance of the policy intent. The combination of "they'll know what we mean", "let Bob have the last word" and "my own hot-button item is next on the agenda" is powerful. – CCTO Oct 21 '20 at 13:38
9

It's like the old joke about the computer programmer whose wife tells him to get a loaf of bread on the way home and, "..if they have eggs, get six". He comes home and puts six loaves on the table. The wife asks why on earth he got six loaves; he replies, "well, they had eggs." – Oscar Bravo Oct 21 '20 at 14:15
1

@OscarBravo he actually got 7 – user253751 Oct 21 '20 at 14:48
3

@user253751 no, it doesn't say get 6 more or add 6 loaves there's no += lol, it's 6 instead of 1, so he brought home 6, or if you rather var lob = 1; if(eggs == true){lob = 6;} – TCooper Oct 21 '20 at 21:51
3

I have seen orthography/grammar errors (like silly mistakes that any native speaker carefully reading it should notice) on important documents (such as a banking contract template) even though they had to be reviewed by multiple lawyers, and not precisely cheap ones. – Ángel Oct 21 '20 at 23:32
2

@TCooper Checking whether a boolean is true is overly wordy. Writing if (eggs == true) is like writing "If it's true that there are eggs". You can just write if eggs. Speaking of programming, how many times has someone come to Stack Overflow and asked why "if a = 1 or 2" isn't giving them the result they want? – Acccumulation Oct 22 '20 at 08:17
1

@Acccumulation if a = 1 is always true.. It means, "set a equal to 1". Since this succeeds, the call returns true. I think you meant if a == 1... (I'll get my coat). – Oscar Bravo Oct 22 '20 at 11:57
What does "literally means" itself mean with respect to an English sentance? I'd argue that it isn't meaningful. To follow your analogy with computer code, the meaning of computer code can be checked by seeing what a computer does when it executes it. Similarly the meaning of English as written to be read by human can be checked by seeing what a human does when they read it. English doesn't come with any formal specification. – bdsl Oct 22 '20 at 12:14
@TCooper getLoaves(1); if(haveEggs()) {getLoaves(6);} - not getLoaves(haveEggs() ? 6 : 1) – user253751 Oct 22 '20 at 13:33
@user253751 You clearly favor OOP in all things, rather than any procedural. That's just how you frame it. IMO your take on this common joke is the exact problem with overusing OOP methodology in practical applications. – TCooper Oct 22 '20 at 17:26
@Accumulation I prefer verbose programming, you don't, and that's okay. Sorry if my extra words were too much to read though. – TCooper Oct 22 '20 at 17:26
@bdsl ironically, people generally understand what "literally means" refers to, and thus it has a meaning... while it is true that English doesn't have a formal semantics or anything, it does have structure, and I think "literal meaning" is best understood to be the meaning that you would read from something purely from its structure and the meaning of its components, without taking into account context and intent of the speaker. – Ben Millwood Oct 22 '20 at 19:56
@BenMillwood but what is the 'meaning' of the components? Dictionary makers have to look at words in context to write definitions of them. And you still need to make a leap from a list of meanings of components to an overall meaning, which is either by choosing the meaning the author probably intented, or arbitrarily substituting a different set of rules to the ones they applying. – bdsl Oct 22 '20 at 20:01
It's not arbitrary though. A language is a shared understanding of a set of rules that we all use when we communicate in that language. It's imprecise and varies somewhat from person to person, but it certainly exists. Like I said, if you refer to the "literal meaning" of some text, people do understand what you're referring to. So it must be a meaningful concept. – Ben Millwood Oct 22 '20 at 20:21
2

@TCooper ??? there's nothing OOP about getLoaves(1); if(haveEggs()) {getLoaves(6);} – user253751 Oct 23 '20 at 09:35
@user253751 ??? Encapsulation and abstraction. – TCooper Oct 23 '20 at 17:01
1

@TCooper i'd like to see your hypothetical non-OOP version of getLoaves(1); if(haveEggs()) {getLoaves(6);} – user253751 Oct 24 '20 at 16:16
@OscarBravo if a = 1 is always true in some programming languages. It's a syntax error, however, in the languages I know about that treat assignments as expressions and have a different operator (such as ==) for comparison. Other languages do not allow the implicit evaluation of integers as booleans. Other languages have a separate operator for assignment (such as <-). It's wrong to assume that it's a c-style language since it's a syntax error in c-style syntax. But if it's legal syntax and 2 is implicitly evaluated as true, it doesn't matter whether a = 1 is true or false. – phoog Oct 24 '20 at 18:37
1

@phoog All that reminds me of the Engineer, Mathematician and Computer Scientist on a train to Scotland. As the train crosses the border they see a black sheep in a field. "Oh look!", says the Engineer, "Sheep in Scotland are black!". "Not quite", says the Mathematician, "There is at least one black sheep in Scotland". "Hold my beer...", says the Computer Scientist - "there exists at least one sheep in Scotland that is black on at least one side". – Oscar Bravo Oct 26 '20 at 09:51
@user253751 I don't have a hypothetical version of your code because the actions of the functions are only implied by context. I can't see it because it was abstracted when you encapsulated it in your functions that aren't defined in this comment section... I challenge you to frame all OOP as an extrapolation and mutation of functions, then maybe you'll understand what I mean. – TCooper Oct 26 '20 at 16:23
@TCooper code without objects is not OOP. full stop. – user253751 Oct 26 '20 at 16:49
@user253751 I don't disagree with that statement, but that doesn't exclude applying the concepts of the design paradigm. This isn't the place for this, idk how to move to chat, but feel free if you'd like. – TCooper Oct 26 '20 at 17:18

PJB · Answer 4 · 2020-10-22T12:41:32.033

If you drive through the backwoods of Maine you'll see lots of signs that say "No Trespassing". They have not been vetted by lawyers; they have been vetted by decades (centuries?) of usage. Everyone knows that "No Trespassing" means "you can't come in here without permission". So "No Trespassing Without Permission", while redundant, isn't at all contradictory. And "No Trespassing Without Permission from XXXX" is perfectly clear.

As to why it's necessary to state the obvious, it's about hunting, implied easements over land, and traditional usage. "No Trespassing" means exactly what it says and has to be said in order to restrict traditional assumptions about use of land. For more details, go here.

That doesn't really answer the question though - "No Trespassing" is essentially a "repeated negative" whereas "No trespassing without permission" is a double-negative. Most people understand the intent of both, but Lawyers aren't 'most people'. — MikeB, Oct 23 '20 at 10:14

What effect does bad English have on warnings / disclaimers?

4 Answers4

It's only a problem if it's ambiguous or unclear.