While trawling through caselaw, I encountered Gingras v. Avery, 90 Conn. App. 585, 591, 878 A.2d 404, 408 (2005). It involved a fight over the following:
The closing shall take place on or before sixty (60) days after subdivision approval; but in no event later than March 15, 2003.
The developers of the property in question didn’t obtain subdivision approval but argued that they were nevertheless entitled to close the deal. The developers lost, but not before the dispute went to trial court and then appellate court.
I suggest that part of the problem is how the sentence at issue was worded. I could argue with a straight face—sort of—that the second part (“no later than March 15, 2003”) operates independently of the first part (“on or before sixty (60) days after subdivision approval”). In other words, that the sentence could be read to mean as follows:
The closing shall take place on the earlier of (1) on or before sixty (60) days after subdivision approval and (2) March 15, 2003.
In the context, that wasn’t a plausible meaning, which is why the developers lost. But part of the job of a contract drafter is to deprive disgruntled contract parties of the opportunity to wage a losing battle.
So what would I have done? Probably I would have imposed on the parties an obligation to use reasonable efforts to close no later than 60 days after approval, and I would have separately stated that the drop-dead date was March 15, 2003.
Why single out this dispute to write about? I do my best to categorize what makes for confusing contract language. That allows me to impose some order. But the topic is too sprawling and complex for everything to fit within my taxonomy. This dispute is a case in point. What general observation can I draw from it. None that I can think of at the moment, other than let’s be careful out there.