"Within one year or more" ???
« previous post | next post »
From Frederick Newmeyer:
I recently had to cancel a flight with Delta Airlines and was directed to their webpage that discusses what to do to get a refund. I found the following bizarre instruction:
Please retain the ticket/document number(s) below as they have become an eCredit and the remaining value can be used to rebook a flight within one year or more from the original purchase date.
What on earth does ‘within one year or more’ mean? Taken literally, it means that I could rebook a flight five years from now, but they can’t possibly mean that. All attempts to get an explanation from Delta have failed. Can anybody explain what ‘within one year or more’ might mean?
My first guess would be that Delta meant "within one year or less", and got semantically turned around in the way that people often do when scalar predicates are in the neighborhood of (even implicit) negation.
But there are lots of internet hits for "within one year or more" — and many of them seem to have the same problem, like this page's definition of "Assets", where the phrase "within one year or more" seems to add nothing at all:
The assets section includes all tangible and intangible items that have value and can be converted into cash within one year or more.
Jerry Packard said,
August 31, 2024 @ 8:30 am
If it’s not a mistake then I would’ve guessed that they mean at least a year and they haven’t yet decided what the upper bound would be.
Mark Liberman said,
August 31, 2024 @ 8:36 am
@Jerry Packard: "If it’s not a mistake then I would’ve guessed that they mean at least a year and they haven’t yet decided what the upper bound would be."
In that case, shouldn't it be "after one year or more"?
Benjamin E. Orsatti said,
August 31, 2024 @ 8:40 am
I love ambiguity more than most people. (!)
Maybe it's legal, not linguistic, reasoning that can save the day? (he taunted, playfully).
Since the rebate offer is, strictly speaking, in the nature of a contract or a contractual warranty, we have to apply the maxim which compels us to give meaning to all parts of the clause, where possible. And, in cases of ambiguity, contracts are interpreted against the draftsman. Thus, "within one year" would have to mean that you can apply your rebate to any flight within one year from the original flight, and "or more" must mean that there may be circumstances wherein the rebate could apply after that time.
*The above is not meant to constitute legal advice, and you should consult your local lawyer / barrister / solicitor / lawspeaker / shaman, yada, yada, yada.
Joe said,
August 31, 2024 @ 9:26 am
The limit might be a year, or there might be exceptions that can be explained only with several paragraphs of fine print elsewhere. But if they cut you off on day 366, they can still say they told you so.
Adrien said,
August 31, 2024 @ 10:29 am
oh hey, I'm taking an accounting class…
In the particular case of the asset definition, "within one year or more" may well be entirely intentional, given that a common accounting distinction on some balance sheets is whether assets are "current" (likely to be exchanged or used within a current time period, often a year) or not.
Some asset items are not very likely to be exchanged within a year, such as manufacturing machinery or a company's building (or an intangible asset like branding…) but could be liquidated if needed. Others, like cash, inventory, and day to day supplies, *are* very likely to be exchanged/sold/used+counted as an expense within a year.
Dennis Paul Himes said,
August 31, 2024 @ 10:36 am
I agree with Joe. My interpretation when I read it was that there's an upper limit, and they're not exactly specifying it for whatever reason, but they're guaranteeing that the upper limit is at least one year.
GH said,
August 31, 2024 @ 12:06 pm
@Mark Liberman:
To me, it seems like that would reverse the meaning, indicating that you cannot use it for at least a year (perhaps more), but only after the period has expired.
Andreas Johansson said,
August 31, 2024 @ 2:26 pm
I haven't a clue what Delta meant, but it reminds me of an ad for a product that would increase something or other by "up to 100% or more".
cameron said,
August 31, 2024 @ 5:40 pm
this reminds me of the TV commercials for a company called The Money Store that used to air in New York in the 1980s. they had former baseball player Phil Rizzuto as their spokesman. the catch phrase was originally "you can borrow up to \$50,000". but then it became ". . . up to \$50,000 or more!", and eventually ". . . up to no limit!"
Kim said,
August 31, 2024 @ 5:47 pm
I'm thinking Adrian is getting at the root of this. It sends out runners when management in Customer Relations defer to Legal and import their language (intended for internal and technical audiences) wholesale into communications with the public. We're enjoying the blossoms now.
Not that I recognize this from working down on the pharms, of course, totally different industry and standards! Seriously!
Duncan said,
September 22, 2024 @ 4:45 am
Late reply (RSS catch-up), but extending on my year of basic accounting (elementary bookkeeping at that level — hey, I know what "double-entry" means! =:^) the situation is very likely much as others have stated.
Given the "within one year or more" apparent "term of art":
1) The canceled ticket "eCredit" is initially considered a liability for accounting purposes, to be written off after one year, at which point (well, maybe 13 months or so if it was a vacation flight or something) the likelihood of claim drops enough that writing off the liability is reasonable.
2) However, the PR/customer-relations policy may well say still apply the credit if someone tries to claim it (certainly out to say 14 months or so at least, to cover the annual vacation case above), tho possibly "at agent discretion". But as the liability will have already been written off in that case it will track under another account, likely a purpose-specific sub-account under PR/customer-relations, at which point it can be treated as purchase of a short-term "goodwill" asset (as opposed to the expungement of the already written off liability), likely with a similar one-year expiry.
Consider the very similar case of accepting an expired coupon… and how the generally relatively low cost of such "continue to honor it" policies compare to attempting to buy an equally effective amount of "goodwill" via advertising…
Meanwhile, I'm glad I clicked through to the comments as I initially hadn't a clue (either my 80's era course wasn't advanced enough to have covered that specific term of art or I long ago forgot it…) and thought it /had/ to be a mistake for "or less". So if I'd have skipped the comments I'd have missed the meaning and that it /is/ an apparent term of art (a bit of googling confirmed the exact phrase in Adrien's current/long-term asset context), and a quite interesting one in LL context, at that! =:^)