In 1962 a rocket carrying the Mariner 1 probe blew up shortly after blasting off from Cape Canaveral. A subsequent investigation revealed that the cause of the failure was down to an errant hyphen in the computer code responsible for the rocket's guidance system. The episode has since been dubbed as the most expensive hyphen in history reputedly costing NASA £500m in today's terms. It is not only rocket scientists that need to be acutely aware that small changes to coding (or drafting is lawyer speak) can have effects that no one anticipates. In the High Court case of Vitol E&P Ltd v New Age (African Global Energy) Ltd  EWHC 1580 (Comm) the court was asked to consider the interpretation of a clause in a commercial contract which on the face of it seemed straightforward, but was argued could be interpreted in a number of different ways and as a colleague has commented, "this is another unusual example of the courts taking an apparently clear piece of drafting and overlaying an alternative interpretation based on what the courts thought the parties' intentions must have been (see also Khaled Hassan Ibrahim Zahid v Duthus Group Investments Limited v His Royal Highness Prince Turki Bin Mugrin Al Saud  CSOH 59) It is not clear why the wording as drafted was "unworkable" - it is not uncommon for a pricing change in a commercial agreement to take effect within a given time period. This demonstrates the importance of clarity in long sentences; in this case perhaps if the provision in question had been restructured then any ambiguity as to the parties' intentions could have been removed.
On the natural reading of the language of the provision, the defendant's interpretation results in an interpretation which is at best described as odd or unnatural and at worst unworkable. The alternative interpretation, that for which the claimant contends, is in my view the natural meaning of the language albeit that it involves a conclusion that the comma is in the wrong place.