licensing language
Does a grammatical error in a license annul the statement?
<p>In a license for commercial software, I have recently encountered the following <s>perl</s> pearl of perspicuous and immaculate syntax:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[company] does not warrant that use of the Software will operate uninterrupted or error free.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Since <em>use</em> cannot <em>operate</em> in any sense, shall the whole sentence be annuled and the license treated as if without it?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>company does not warrant that use of the Software will operate
  uninterrupted or error free.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A court will not find that statement to be ambiguous or contradictory. Mere grammatical differences will not void a contract. See <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/5427/typing-errors-in-legal-contract">Typing errors in legal contract</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I have recently encountered the following perl of perspicuous and
  immaculate syntax:</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Correct grammar and usage is "pearl", not "perl". <a href="https://www.perl.org/" rel="noreferrer">Perl</a> is a programming language; as for a pearl, you must be thinking of the <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pearl%20of%20wisdom" rel="noreferrer">definition of Pearl Of Wisdom (Merriam-Webster)</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Since <em>use</em> cannot <em>operate</em> in any sense, shall the whole sentence be annuled and the license treated as if without it?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. The statement is intelligible enough for a reasonable person would grasp the substance thereof; namely, that the company cannot be held liable for software interruptions or bugs. Therefore, the sentence is not to be voided or stricken.</p>

<p>Licenses and contracts in general are premised --<em>inter alia</em>-- on the parties' awareness of the conditions, not on the grammatical correctness of how these are expressed.</p>
