Legal grammar question - how can this phrase be correct?

[luckyjimm]

I got in an argument with one of the lawyers at the law firm where I'm a lackey about a phrase he wanted me to use in a document:

"an investors' consent"

He insists it is correct. It means one investor, out of a group of investors, is giving his consent.

Similarly, you might have "a dogs' dinner".

To me it just seems wrong; a usefully-short but grammatically impossible formulation.

"The investors' consent" would mean they all consented;

"An investor's consent" would mean there was one investor, and he consented.

I understand the need for a short phrase which means one investor out of a group is consenting.

But you can't have "an investors" or claim that there is no singular/plural mismatch because the "an" connects to the "consent".

Sorry for boring post but this is bugging the hell out of me. Could one of you please explain why this phrase is correct?

[bobman0330]

sounds like it's wrong. i guess it's possible that the phrase "investors' consent" is an established term, and "an investors' consent" indicates one unit of the item "investors' consent," but that seems very implausible.

[TiK]

[ QUOTE ]

"an investors' consent"

He insists it is correct. It means one investor, out of a group of investors, is giving his consent...Could one of you please explain why this phrase is correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's incorrect. If he was describing many investors and needing their consent, then it'd be "the investors' consent," but since that sounds so clunky, I'd probably say the consent of the investors. But if he wants it to mean the consent of one investor, the correct way would be "the/an investor's consent."

[XXXNoahXXX]

ummmm

wouldn't "an investor's consent" imply one of many consented whereas "the investor's consent" would be sole consent.

[nsdjoe]

Definitely looks incorrect to the amateur grammar nazi in me.

[fnurt]

It's a specific type of legal document. It's called an "investor's consent." He is just wrong about where the apostrophe goes.

[luckyjimm]

No, he is meaning one investor, out of a group of investors, gives his consent.

So it does not have the same meaning as "the investors' consent" or "an investor's consent."

He insisted to me it was grammatically correct, but it still bugs me, it just seems wrong.

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
I got in an argument with one of the lawyers at the law firm where I'm a lackey about a phrase he wanted me to use in a document:

"an investors' consent"

He insists it is correct. It means one investor, out of a group of investors, is giving his consent.

Similarly, you might have "a dogs' dinner".

To me it just seems wrong; a usefully-short but grammatically impossible formulation.

"The investors' consent" would mean they all consented;

"An investor's consent" would mean there was one investor, and he consented.

I understand the need for a short phrase which means one investor out of a group is consenting.

But you can't have "an investors" or claim that there is no singular/plural mismatch because the "an" connects to the "consent".

Sorry for boring post but this is bugging the hell out of me. Could one of you please explain why this phrase is correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the legal structure of the group of investors...if any? That could have some bearing on how the document is worded if they are acting as a group (plural) or is one person able to act as a representative of the whole (singular)?

[nsdjoe]

murder him

[TiK]

Don't worry, a partner'll see it, comment on the wrong grammar, and the lawyer'll yell at you in front of the partner to save face even though you told him you thought it was wrong in the first place.