17:54 Jun 3, 2011 

@ innsbruck: I do not expect you to give us any further detail on this particular contract. I would simply like to suggest (and you have probably already done this!) two things:
1. Scour the contract for any other reference to this disclaimer; it may shed light on your predicament.
2. You have posted this query in the category of "Law/Patents - Law general". Do any other documents (not related to your client) with the same, or even similar, wording (with or without the commas) exist, which you have access to, which could hopefully lead you to the conclusion *beyond a reasonable doubt* that you have a case of an overzealous "comma typist" on your hands? You have my sympathy.

17:03 Jun 3, 2011 

Thank you all again for all your important inputs!

I think it is important to understand that as a legal translator you have to translate what's written in the text. So, if the text is wrong, you have to translate this nonsense, even though you know it is nonsense. Contracts concluded 10 years ago cannot be redrafted or changed!

I know that the text should have been drafted as meaning option B. I have never seen this strange use of commas in these standard clauses (they're called severability clauses btw and commas are never used).

But, yet, these commas are included in my sentence. Whether commas should be there or whether it would have been better to leave them out is a moot question. They are simply there and thus create problems! And it is now for me to find out whether this specific use of commas has changed the meaning, i.e. whether the use of the commas suggests option A (even though option B would be correct and should have been drafted).

So, what I want to find out with your help is how you interpret this specific sentence.

Is it (commas included, even though they should not be there!)

a) option A

b) option B

c) totally ambiguous.

15:26 Jun 3, 2011 

As a secretary (!) years ago, I had to draft sales agreements and such. My boss then sent them to his lawyer "for perusal". The lawyer's response was, "These are fine. But tell your girl (me!) to leave the commas out." :) :)

14:58 Jun 3, 2011 

Sorry I am native French (nobody's perfect), so I will let others discuss the linguistic detailed meaning and status of the comma in legal texts.
My experience in both languages about this little punctuation is that translators and reviewers are much more picky and careful about its usage than writers and readers, even among lawyers.

So if you get sued we will testify that you did attempt and used reasonable means to remove an ambiguity in the source text, but sometimes I wonder if we should not sue the writers for producing such ambiguities...

14:57 Jun 3, 2011 

With commas, there is room for misinterpretation. Without commas both the contract and the other documents are of equal weight. Furthermore in my experience most legal documents use commas sparsely, so you almost can't go wrong with leaving them out.

13:57 Jun 3, 2011 

It is my impression that the commas do not change the meaning of the phrase, they just indicate a pause. And that, in either case, the phrase is slightly ambiguous, thus our discussion. I would guess that, in a legal context, it would be interpreted as meaning "or any clause in any document", especially if documents themselves cannot be illegal, as that would render the phrase between the commas meaningless. If you have translated this hundreds of times and you haven´t been sued yet, you must be on the right track!

13:40 Jun 3, 2011 

Didier, Martin and, of course, Allison, thank you all for your input!

This is exactly the problem I have... I have translated clauses like these literally a 100 times and I know that the sentence *should* read as any clause set out (a) in this contract or (b) (set out in) any document relating hereto... This *should* be the meaning. But I think that the use of the commas separates "any document" from the first part of the sentence, hence making the sentence slightly illogical in legal terms because it reads as "any clause set out in this Contract" + "any document relating hereto", thus meaning that "any document relating hereto" as a whole could be held illegal (rather than any individual clause contained therein).

If however, there were no commas, I would think the sentence would read as "any clause set out in this contract or (set out in) any document relating hereto...

At the end of the day, this is what I want to know...

1) Whether there is a linguistic relationship beween "any clause" and "any document" in the sentence above (with commas)

and

2) whether the omission of the commas would create such a relationship (which would be more logical in legal terms)

13:35 Jun 3, 2011 

I like the logic of your comment and believe it to be correct. Often contracts specify that, even if one clause is found to be illegal, the others still hold good (probably the case in point). It is not the document itself that is illegal. But lawyers are fallible too! It could be corrected by saying " ..., or IN any document relating hereto..." which would then refer to any clause in any document relating hereto.

13:16 Jun 3, 2011 

My understanding is that a document cannot be held illegal, only a clause out of the document may be so.
Should all the clauses in a same document be held illegal, the document by itself could remain valid if executed by both parties in proper procedure, but it could have no binding value.

So the answer is in the question IMHO and I understand: "should a clause be held illegal, in this contract or any document relating hereto"