"The Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days' prior written notice."
I think "upon" renders "prior" redundant. Do you agree?
Thanks!
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...Well, maybe but if you remove it, you should replace it with "with" (sorry for the redundant redundancy :-D).
As for the redundancy of "prior", I have found this: AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » “Notice” or “Prior Notice”?
I find "prior" absolutely fine and not redundant. If you replace it with "with" you would have to remove the apostrophe from "days'"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...
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 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'"
Yes that's what I meant too, sorry.bhaisahab: please see my subsequent post.
If you have a question about the English language and would like to ask one of our many English teachers and language experts, please click the button below to let us know: