By: Richard Burt

Richard Burt — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:05:01 +0000

One drafting solution would have been to eliminate altogether the reference to “restaurant facility” and to have defined “restaurant” to mean “a stand-alone facility or an operation found in a food court, embedded in a store, or otherwise not a stand-alone facility.” That way, “fast food” would modify the stand-alone facility as well as the non-stand-alones. As would the phrase “whose principal food product is chicken on the bone, boneless chicken or chicken sandwiches.”

I would probably use words other than “stand-alone facility” but for the purpose of illustrating this solution, it’s good enough.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 16 May 2007 11:52:05 +0000

Ken:

Has it really come to this, when discussing chicken?

“because the Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant wasn’t a fast-food restaurant it didn’t fall foul of the restrictive covenant”

(emphasis added)

Comments on: Illinois Case Provides Great Example of Syntactic Ambiguity

By: Richard Burt

By: Jeff