For so long as Dr. Boyd is President and a single person, she shall not be allowed to cohabitate in the President’s residence with any person with whom she has a romantic relation.
Leaving aside whether it’s intrusive, this provision isn’t a model of clarity. As such, it provides an interesting example of issue-spotting. Let me count the ways:
First, the verb should be cohabit. Cohabitate is, according to Bryan Garner, “a misbegotten back-formation.” See Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 170 (3d ed 2011).
Second, shall not be allowed is an awkward way to impose a prohibition. It sort of sounds like someone else has an obligation to prevent her from cohabiting.
Third, it would seem that if Ms. Boyd were married, she could cohabit with someone other than her husband without breaching the contract. Presumably that isn’t what was intended.
Fourth, what if no romance is involved? No flowers and chocolates, just pure carnality?
Fifth, Ms. Boyd would presumably be free to engage in a nonstop series of spirited one-night stands. Again, that presumably isn’t what was intended.
And sixth, I could imagine the parties getting into a dispute over the point at which a series of short stays by a significant other of Ms. Boyd constitutes cohabiting.
So I’m filing this under “Bad Drafting.”