Prior

Status
Not open for further replies.

Allen165

Key Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Switzerland
"The Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days' prior written notice."

I think "upon" renders "prior" redundant. Do you agree?

Thanks!
 
"The Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days' prior written notice."

I think "upon" renders "prior" redundant. Do you agree?

Thanks!

Well, maybe but if you remove it, you should replace it with "with" (sorry for the redundant redundancy :-D).
 
Well, maybe but if you remove it, you should replace it with "with" (sorry for the redundant redundancy :-D).
I don't understand why it's correct when we replace "prior" with "with". Could you explain it? The apostrophe in days' makes "with" very strange to me...
 
I don't understand why it's correct when we replace "prior" with "with". Could you explain it? The apostrophe in days' makes "with" very strange to me...
I find "prior" absolutely fine and not redundant. If you replace it with "with" you would have to remove the apostrophe from "days'"
 
It seems redundant to me. Of course the notice is "prior". It wouldn't be of much purpose to provide 30 days of notice afterwards.
 
It seems redundant to me. Of course the notice is "prior". It wouldn't be of much purpose to provide 30 days of notice afterwards.

I agree. If you provide notice, I'm pretty sure it always means in advance or prior.
 
I don't understand why it's correct when we replace "prior" with "with". Could you explain it? The apostrophe in days' makes "with" very strange to me...

I didn't suggest replacing "prior" with "with". Replace "upon" with "with".
 
I find "prior" absolutely fine and not redundant. If you replace it with "with" you would have to remove the apostrophe from "days'"

bhaisahab: please see my subsequent post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top