deadbeat00

A simple math can be confusing if the lawyers get involve by writing it.

Recommended Posts

I have a case which is based on the following contractual statement:

Travel Distance: An employee covered by this Agreement shall have the right to refuse a transfer to another location if the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles or the distance between his place of residence and his current store, which ever is greater.

The employee's current location is 3 miles.

The employee's new location is 10 miles

Q. Does employee have the right to refuse?:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a case which is based on the following contractual statement:

Travel Distance: An employee covered by this Agreement shall have the right to refuse a transfer to another location if the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles or the distance between his place of residence and his current store, which ever is greater.

The employee's current location is 3 miles.

The employee's new location is 10 miles

Q. Does employee have the right to refuse?:confused:

IMO, there is a ascertain ambiguity in the contractual clause.

By using simple math explanation it means that if "ether" -- "or" condition is greater, then the right to refuse apply.

1) In the first condition the new location 10 < 25 miles so the right to refuse does not exists.

"OR"

2) In the second condition the new location 10 > 3 miles employee's current location so the right to refuse does exists because the grater condition prevails.

Although my interpretation is mathematically correct is it may not be correct under the ambiguity of the contract?

What do you think?:-)

Edited by deadbeat00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a case which is based on the following contractual statement:

Travel Distance: An employee covered by this Agreement shall have the right to refuse a transfer to another location if the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles or the distance between his place of residence and his current store, which ever is greater.

The employee's current location is 3 miles.

The employee's new location is 10 miles

Q. Does employee have the right to refuse?:confused:

My conclusion is "No."

The employee has a right to refuse if the distance between his home and the new job is more that the greater of Condition A or Condition B.

Condition A is 25 miles. Condition B is the distance from the employee's home to his current store.

In this case Condition B is 3 miles. The greater of A and B is A, 25 miles. So they can relocate the employee up to 25 miles, and the employee cannot refuse. He can only refuse if they try to relocate him to a store more than 25 miles from his house.

If the employee currently commuted 50 miles to work, condition B is 50 Miles, and B is greater than A. So they could relocate the employee to a store 10 miles from his house, or 20, or 30, or 40, and the employee cannot refuse. But if they tried to reloctate him to 60 miles away, he could refuse.

Regards,

DH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My conclusion is "No."

The employee has a right to refuse if the distance between his home and the new job is more that the greater of Condition A or Condition B.

Condition A is 25 miles. Condition B is the distance from the employee's home to his current store.

In this case Condition B is 3 miles. The greater of A and B is A, 25 miles. So they can relocate the employee up to 25 miles, and the employee cannot refuse. He can only refuse if they try to relocate him to a store more than 25 miles from his house.

If the employee currently commuted 50 miles to work, condition B is 50 Miles, and B is greater than A. So they could relocate the employee to a store 10 miles from his house, or 20, or 30, or 40, and the employee cannot refuse. But if they tried to reloctate him to 60 miles away, he could refuse.

Regards,

DH

Well that is where the ambiguity began.

I agree up to this point: "In this case Condition B is 3 miles. The greater of A and B is A, 25 miles." So is New location 10 miles.

The contract says that grater condition prevails for a [refusal].

The objective of the condition is "employee refusal" not "employer's ability to relocate". Read the paragraph carefully.

Since A will be always greater of A and B until A <= B than employer cannot relocate employee beyond the condition B.

Edited by deadbeat00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple answer here: NO. The clause isn't poorly written IMO. If your current commute was 50 miles, then they couldn't transfer you to a store > 50 miles away. But they've added a necessary lower mileage limit in case you live 1 mile from your current store- a 25 mile limit. So as long as you live within 25 miles of your current store (the situation here) then you only have the right to refuse transfer if the new store is > 25 miles from your home.

Lawyers write like that because they have to be precise and attempt to eliminate questions before they arise. I think they've done a good job here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple answer here: NO. The clause isn't poorly written IMO. If your current commute was 50 miles, then they couldn't transfer you to a store > 50 miles away. But they've added a necessary lower mileage limit in case you live 1 mile from your current store- a 25 mile limit. So as long as you live within 25 miles of your current store (the situation here) then you only have the right to refuse transfer if the new store is > 25 miles from your home.

Lawyers write like that because they have to be precise and attempt to eliminate questions before they arise. I think they've done a good job here.

I agree with your logic but that is one way how to interpret it. However, there are more ways.

The original statement:

new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles or the distance between his place of residence and his current store, which ever is greater.

[New>25] OR [residence AND current store], which ever is greater = refusal;

Another way is:

Pleas notice that there are three conditions separated by two Boolean operations: Logical operation OR; Logical operation AND;

Rewritten to my understanding:

new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles OR new location, the distance between his place of residence AND his current store, which ever is greater.

Because the new location is common to all conditions separated by Logical operations OR/AND we can write.

[New> 25] OR [New> residence AND New > current store] = refusal;

"which ever is greater" disappears because of added New after OR.

In your explanation you have reduced the entire statement to [New>25] which is too simplistic or the statement is badly written because it contains unnecessary lawyerism.

Edited by deadbeat00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with jq26.

Because the "whichever is greater" is at the end, it cannot "disappear". It reads pretty easy and most reasonable people will interpret it the same way. You can use the "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" argument, but those arguments are very expensive.

So my answer is: No, the employee cannot refuse per the contract.

PS Is there possibly a colon or semicolon after the if?

Travel Distance: An employee covered by this Agreement shall have the right to refuse a transfer to another location if; the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles or the distance between his place of residence and his current store, which ever is greater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with jq26.

Because the "whichever is greater" is at the end, it cannot "disappear". It reads pretty easy and most reasonable people will interpret it the same way. You can use the "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" argument, but those arguments are very expensive.

So my answer is: No, the employee cannot refuse per the contract.

PS Is there possibly a colon or semicolon after the if?

Travel Distance: An employee covered by this Agreement shall have the right to refuse a transfer to another location if; the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles or the distance between his place of residence and his current store, which ever is greater.

FYI the "which ever is greater" did not "disappear out of the equation" it got distributed on the other side of the equation.

No there i no semicolon after the if.

N= New; C=current;

You are reading it like this:

([N < 25] > [C]) OR ([C] > [N < 25])= acceptance;

but it is written like this:

([N < 25] > [C]) OR ([C] > ([N < 25] > [C])); to get "which ever" is greater = acceptance of the greater distance;..... and that is illogical.

I am reading it like this:

([N < 25]) OR ([N < C]) = acceptance;

([N > 25]) OR ([N > C]) = refusal;

In essence I am appalling the "which ever" to the condition after OR otherwise "which ever" OR would be an oxymoron;

Edited by deadbeat00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "and" is used as part of the calculation of distance from the residence to the current store. Because the used the word between, they have to define the points. The points are the residence "and" the current store. If the word between were not there I could go along with you, but between preposition that must be completed before you continue to read the sentence. And the proper completion is "and"

http://www.grammarandmore.com/edu/acu-write.htm#f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "and" is used as part of the calculation of distance from the residence to the current store. Because the used the word between, they have to define the points. The points are the residence "and" the current store. If the word between were not there I could go along with you, but between preposition that must be completed before you continue to read the sentence. And the proper completion is "and"

http://www.grammarandmore.com/edu/acu-write.htm#f

While you have been typing, I have added my interpretation on the bottom.

In general the AND has same meaning in logic as is does in a composition.

By substituting "true"(1); "false"(0) you get only 4 binary combination with AND:


I you = we; (!=) means not equal;
----------------------
true AND false = false (I exist) != we
true AND true = true (I AND you exist) = we;
false AND false = false (no one exist) != we
false AND true = false (you exist) !=we

Same for OR like this:
true OR false = true (I exist) != we
true OR true = true (I OR you exist) != we
false OR false = false (no one exist) !=we
false OR true = true (you exist) !=we

Please notice that only AND produces "we"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the paragraph is perfectly clear, and when I posted the first response to your question, I think my explanation and example were even more clear. And since then, all other posters have agreed with me.

You seem to be like a person looking at one of those optical illusion pictures, and you are stuck seeing one image, and you are locked in and can't see the other image - the right one, in this case.

So I will make one more attempt, and I shall use the mathematical representation you like. (You aren't putting the parentheses in the right place.)

Let's start with the original paragraph:

An employee covered by this Agreement shall have the right to refuse a transfer to another location if the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles or the distance between his place of residence and his current store, which ever is greater.

Using your nomenclature:

N is the distance from the employee's house to the new store

C is the distance from the employee's house to the current store

The correct mathematical representation is (and borrowing from Excel spreadsheet equations):

Right-to-refuse-transfer is "true" (or =1) if: N > [MAX(25,C)]

That "MAX" function - that's the "which ever is greater" from the contract"

N is checked against the larger of 25 and C.

Regards,

DH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the state of the economy and job market, I would quit haggling over the wording of the contract and enjoy the paycheck. If you bring this up and are an at will employee may find you aren't having to drive any distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the paragraph is perfectly clear, and when I posted the first response to your question, I think my explanation and example were even more clear. And since then, all other posters have agreed with me.

You seem to be like a person looking at one of those optical illusion pictures, and you are stuck seeing one image, and you are locked in and can't see the other image - the right one, in this case.

So I will make one more attempt, and I shall use the mathematical representation you like. (You aren't putting the parentheses in the right place.)

Let's start with the original paragraph:

An employee covered by this Agreement shall have the right to refuse a transfer to another location if the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles or the distance between his place of residence and his current store, which ever is greater.

Using your nomenclature:

N is the distance from the employee's house to the new store

C is the distance from the employee's house to the current store

The correct mathematical representation is (and borrowing from Excel spreadsheet equations):

Right-to-refuse-transfer is "true" (or =1) if: N > [MAX(25,C)]

That "MAX" function - that's the "which ever is greater" from the contract"

N is checked against the larger of 25 and C.

Regards,

DH

Thanks for your attempt debtorshusband.

Let me dissect the original paragraph linguistically by using my ESL. The red bold italic is the original text.

An employee covered by this Agreement shall have the right to refuse a transfer to another location if the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles

At the above part of the paragraph you have the right to refuse if the [N > 25], OK?.... and that is all what this section carries. There is no other information in it which carries any further, except for the original right to refuse because you either (take it or leave it) based on the "Logical operation OR" which folows.

Now, you are finished with your choice because the N=10 < 25. You must go to second choice looking for your right to refuse which carries from this statement into the next.

or....... The Logical operation OR is the choice demarcation between (take it, leave it). You must leave it if you are looking for the right to refuse.

Now, you are still looking for your right to refuse from the previous statement which carries forward.

the distance between his place of residence and his current store, which ever is greater.

Now, your choice for the right to refuse is [N]ew; [C]urrent; which ever is greater. N=10 > C=3.

So, because the [N]ew location is greater than the [C]urrent location -- you have the right to refuse.

-----------------------

You are all making obvious mistake to carry (which ever is greater) back over the Logical operation OR by ignoring that it should be first applied to the implied [N > C] statement because you are evaluating [N] against [25] and [N] against [C].

Furthermore, even if you would be correct in your evaluation of ([N] < [25]) > [C], the (which ever is greater) statement yields the (right to refuse) because that is how it is written:

The [right to refuse] = [N condition] OR [C condition], which ever is greater.

Therefore, if the [10] > [C] it yields the right to refuse and NOT a mandate to accept [10]. That is how gravely ambiguous the paragraph is written.

Note: I may be an idiot but....... that is how it is written so that is how it must be interpreted! [Emphases added]8-)

Edited by deadbeat00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: I may be an idiot but....... that is how it is written so that is how it must be interpreted! [Emphases added]8-)

That is how YOU interpet it. Others have disagreed, and provided excellent alternative interpretations.

Furthermore, a judge is far more likely agree with the others before he agrees with you.

Liguistics has nothing to do with COMMON SENSE. 8-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the distance between his place of residence and his current store, which ever is greater.

Now, your choice for the right to refuse is [N]ew; [C]urrent; which ever is greater. N=10 > C=3.

So, because the [N]ew location is greater than the [C]urrent location -- you have the right to refuse.

This is one of your mistakes right here: There are not two items here, N and C. There is only one: "the distance between his place of residence and his current store", which we have been calling C. The "and" in this phrase is not a Boolean operator. It is only part of the description of the distance, defining the two endpoints which determine the distance. And since there's only one item here, the "whichever is greater" refers to this item plus one other - the 25 miles.

You are all making obvious mistake to carry (which ever is greater) back over the Logical operation OR by ignoring that it should be first applied to the implied [N > C] statement because you are evaluating [N] against [25] and [N] against [C].

You are the one making the mistake. The "whichever is greater" MUST refer to the terms on each side of the logical operator "or", because as I just said above, there's only one term on the right side of the "or", not two.

To summarize, one last time:

If you currently live 3 miles from work, and they want to transfer you to a store 10 miles away, you do not have the right to refuse. (Well, I guess you're always free to quit.) They can transfer you up to 25 miles from where you live.

The 25 miles from where you live will govern, except in cases where the employee is already commuting more than 25 mies. Then they can transfer the employee to any store closer than the current one, and the employee has no right to refuse (again, there's always the option of quitting.)

Regards,

DH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the one making the mistake. The "whichever is greater" MUST refer to the terms on each side of the logical operator "or", because as I just said above, there's only one term on the right side of the "or", not two.

DH

I have don it here:

Furthermore, even if you would be correct in your evaluation of ([N] < [25]) > [C], the (which ever is greater) statement yields the (right to refuse) because that is how it is written:

The [right to refuse] = [N condition] OR [C condition], which ever is greater.

The [right to refuse] If [N condition] OR [C condition], which ever is greater.

The [right to refuse] If [10<25=10] OR [C=3], which ever is greater.

The [right to refuse] If [10>25= 0] OR [C=3], which ever is greater.

So you have a right to refuse because [N]ew location is greater than [C]urrent.:)++

Edited by deadbeat00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prove it!

You can't prove a negative. That is a basic rule of math. Several persons have tried to explain the whole in your logic. You are not interested in any additional reason. You just keep saying the same thing over again in light of reasonable interpretations. Therefore xdeadhorsex or xhitwallx whichever is greater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't prove a negative. That is a basic rule of math. Several persons have tried to explain the whole in your logic. You are not interested in any additional reason. You just keep saying the same thing over again in light of reasonable interpretations. Therefore xdeadhorsex or xhitwallx whichever is greater.

There is no negative in my following presentation:

The [right to refuse] = [N condition] OR [C condition], which ever is greater.

The [right to refuse] If [N condition] OR [C condition], which ever is greater.

The [right to refuse] If [10<25=10] OR [C=3], which ever is greater.

The [right to refuse] If [10>25= 0] OR [C=3], which ever is greater.

However, I have ask you to prove your comics.

Edited by deadbeat00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't prove a negative. That is a basic rule of math. Several persons have tried to explain the whole in your logic. You are not interested in any additional reason. You just keep saying the same thing over again in light of reasonable interpretations. Therefore xdeadhorsex or xhitwallx whichever is greater.

::spew::::laugh::

That literally made me LOL!

Then again, I probably would have went with :thefinger: or :<img src=:'>, whichever is greater...might a simpler equation for some to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
::spew::::laugh::

That literally made me LOL!

Then again, I probably would have went with :thefinger: or :<img src=:'>, whichever is greater...might a simpler equation for some to follow.

When argument falls:

A PUBLIC HYSTERIA OF LOSERS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.