A publication agreement that was just presented to me for signature takes minimization of typographical clutter to a new extreme:
No rights shall revert if it is not possible to reprint or reissue the Work for reasons connected with any war strikes lockouts or circumstances beyond the Publisher's reasonable control.
The underlined part, clearly intended as a 4-member nominal coordination, is not a grammatical phrase at all.
Modern written English allows either (for example) war, strikes, lockouts, or disasters (with the "Oxford comma", which is my preference), or war, strikes, lockouts or disasters (without the Oxford comma); but no current policy permits *war strikes lockouts or disasters (on the assumption that there is no such thing as a "war strikes lockout").
I don't think this is a sign of any new legal policy of total comma elimination, because elsewhere in the agreement there are coordinations punctuated with an Oxford comma policy (as one might have expected, since the publisher is Oxford University Press).
I signed anyway, because what the heck. Technically I am now committed to a condition that is nonsense because it is not even phrased grammatically; but if it is truly nonsense, no one can enforce it. And if it isn't (that is, if common sense is used to interpret the coordination), there is no problem.
I have left comments open below; but please put commas after at least after coordinates 1 thru n -2 in any n-element coordination.