How are terms in poor English enforced?
<p>I was contacted by this phone company, who are trying to sell their service to me.  They say that if I purchase a $19.95 credit on their phone plan, then I can get some discounts; also the $19.95 will be applied to my account, expiring in six months -- and I will not get billed until I use it up.  However, when I went to sign up, this is what their terms said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>With activation $ 19.95</p>
<p>Promotions:</p>
<p>• 5% dsctose. by automatic debit</p>
<p>• 5% of Bill E - 1st, 2nd, 3rd Bill</p>
<p>• 30% dsctose. In the (favorite Number) frequently called</p>
<p>• RETURN ACTIVATION FEE $ 19.99 from 6 months reflected in the bill</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not knowing this phone company well, I am afraid they'll take my $19.95, and not offer anything in return.  Will they be liable if they do so, with the above Terms and Conditions, given that I was provided a verbal assurance of what I described above?</p>

<p>First, if by "they say" you literally mean they use spoken words, and not a printed advertisement, or an advertisement on the internet that you can print out, then you may have a hard time proving what they said. If you can prove what they said that would be very helpful, a seller may be in trouble if their contract is not the same as what they promised.</p>

<p>If things go to court, then a judge will first figure out what the contract is (let's say both sides have a copy of the contract - but the words are different, then a jury decides). That's not what we have here. Then the judge decides what the words in the contract mean. If the words are ambiguous, then the judge interprets the words in favour of the person who didn't write the contract. </p>

<p>Ignoring the specifics here.</p>

<p>A contract in writing is definitive - what was "said" or written before the signed contract is irrelevant. These pre-contractural exchanges are negotiations and a lot of positions are taken in negotiation that do not survive into the contract. However, you cannot speak untruths in your negotiations - that is misrepresntation and may render the ensuing contract void or become a term of the contract. Also, if a party is in "trade or commerce" they cannot engage in misleading or deceptive conduct - that is a statutory breach.</p>

<p>What it says is what it means. If a term is defined in the contract then that's what it means. If it isn't than it takes its normal English meaning. If, as above, it appears to be gibberish it doesn't mean anything. In a written contract, what the parties <em>intended</em> is irrelevant, what matters is the words that are written down (unless they agree on what they intended).</p>

legal-terms