I've negotiated the terms of my employment contract and have inserted the following sentence into the contract...
No after-hours or post-employment restrictions and obligations other than what is stipulated in this letter of appointment alone shall be of any force or effect.
I'm concerned that I might have unwittingly written ambiguously. Is there any uncertainty to anyone here as to what this sentence means?
More specifically... as written, does No [...] restrictions and obligations mean...
1) No obligations that are also restrictions ...meaning that the sentence does NOT refer to obligations that aren't restrictions.
2) No restrictions and no obligations ...meaning that the sentence refers to restrictions of any kind as well as obligations of any kind, regardless of whether the said obligations are also restrictions or not.
3) Some other meaning I haven't thought of.
I'm specifically asking here, because the interpretation of a contract rests heavily on its grammatical meaning. The contract is already signed, so I can't go and change anything now. I just want to know if the sentence is ambiguous or not regarding restrictions and obligations.
Thank you in advance!
I guess the question is whether "or" or "and/or" instead of "and" between "restrictions" and "obligations" would have made any difference to the meaning of the sentence. Consider these sentences...
It is not intended that this letter of appointment define all of the rights and obligations of the parties. Your employment is governed by the Employer’s policies and procedures, as occasionally amended in the sole discretion of the Employer.
a) No after-hours [...] restrictions and obligations [...] shall be of any force or effect.
b) No after-hours [...] restrictions or obligations [...] shall be of any force or effect.
c) No after-hours [...] restrictions and/or obligations [...] shall be of any force or effect.
(The initial sentence is to provide context and eliminate ambiguity regarding whether "after-hours" modifies "obligations" or not.)
So is there any difference in the meaning of the said three sentences? Sorry for being so pedantic about this. I just want to be sure whether the sentence using "and" is lawyer-proof or not. And whether most/all people would interpret the sentence as #1 or #2 above.