The undersigned Parties hereby accept and agree to the I.C.C. Provisions of Non-Circumvention And Non-Disclosure with regards all parties involved in this transaction, Addtions, Renewals, And the Third Party Assignments with full reciprocation for a period of Five years from the Execution of this agreement.
The undersigned Parties hereby accept and agree to the I.C.C. Provisions of Non-Circumvention And Non-Disclosure with regards to all parties involved in this transaction, Additions, Renewals, and the Third Party Assignments with full reciprocation for a period of Five years from the Execution of this agreement.
Changes in bold print. One spelling error. One additional preposition (to).
One capitalization error.
Shouldn't it be "from the date of Execution of..." ?
Joe
0 Replies
gustavratzenhofer
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 04:26 am
Let's work on the title of your thread, oristar.
You wrote Is there any grammatical errors here?
That is incorrect. Try
Are there any grammatical errors here?
Is there a grammatical error here?
Either one of those would be correct. Yours is improperly worded.
When referring to a singular item, use "is"
When referring to multiple items, use "are"
0 Replies
gustavratzenhofer
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 04:46 am
Quote:
The undersigned Parties hereby accept and agree to the I.C.C. Provisions of Non-Circumvention And Non-Disclosure with regards to all parties involved in this transaction, Additions, Renewals, and the Third Party Assignments with full reciprocation for a period of Five years from the Execution of this agreement.
There's something not quite right here. The flow is alright up to "transaction", but it seems the sentence should end there. But the next sentence wouldn't stand on its own.
Are you saying, Oristar, that additions, renewals, or third party assignments (with full reciprocation) will not be allowed for the duration of the five year contract?
0 Replies
oristarA
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 04:50 am
I say, Joe was so sharp-eyed catching out all flaws there!
Gus, I felt a grievance -- because my original title was " Is there any grammatical error here?" , not as what you picked on here -- I think it was impossible that I would make such a naive mistake as you described, unless I was careless.
However, thanks for joining this thread.
0 Replies
gustavratzenhofer
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 04:54 am
Quote:
Gus, I felt a grievance -- because my original title was " Is there any grammatical error here?" , not as what you picked on here -- I think it was imposible that I would make such a naive mistake as you described, unless I was careless.
Are you calling me a liar?
0 Replies
farmerman
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 05:16 am
we always look to your wisdom gus. You are the sage of a2k with not a mean bone in yer body. I worship you.
0 Replies
Miller
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 05:27 am
I'd insert several commas along the way and also break up the statement into several individual sentences.
0 Replies
oristarA
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 05:31 am
Miller wrote:
I'd insert several commas along the way and also break up the statement into several individual sentences.
Go ahead please.
@Gus, Nope, I said "thanks for joining this thread", regardless of any misunderstanding there.
0 Replies
farmerman
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 06:34 am
again, I repeat, gus ' wisdom is a beautiful thing
0 Replies
gustavratzenhofer
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 07:33 am
Farmerman, I've been here helping Oristar. Alone. Except for a brief appearance by Joe.
So back off before I put that friggin' howitzer up yer ass.
Of course, you live closer to Cleveland than I do so perhaps a howitzer won't be required.
Maybe a small stick of dynamite?
0 Replies
cavfancier
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 07:55 am
I'd go with Joe's corrections here. As 'legalise', I don't think it needs any breaking up, or more commas. Damn commas, they should go back to Russia already.
0 Replies
gustavratzenhofer
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 07:57 am
What about my question regarding what happens after transaction? There is no way in hell that sounds right, legalise or not.
0 Replies
cavfancier
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 08:02 am
"Now way in hell"? Who's being grammatically correct with that statement?
0 Replies
gustavratzenhofer
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 08:05 am
What are you talking about?
0 Replies
oristarA
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 09:11 am
Didnt you get it? He just returned like for like.
Just kidding, no offense.
0 Replies
farmerman
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 06:03 pm
why would you threaten me gus? Do not generals have feelings/ are we not human/ if you cut us, do we not bleed/ if you tickle us, do we not laugh?
woe, and fie,
0 Replies
gustavratzenhofer
1
Reply
Sat 26 Jun, 2004 07:49 pm
I have no idea why I threatened you, farmerman. I went over this thread again and you were nothing but complimentary.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace