So I have consulted with a lawyer who simply said "Goldman should probably use "shall not" but for me it's plainly clear that you can only use Marcus here or in you're currently deployed.", which pretty much solidifies how the sentence is to interpreted. I further asked if legally-speaking there is a wiggle room and he simply said "Accessing Marcus while on vacation would technically violate this provision, so I don't think there is a wiggle room here."
Of course you're welcome to litigate this if you happen to be in a similar situation as sherlock_h if you insist, but I would not hold my breath.
I don't know why you did that, but I'm unimpressed by you and your lawyer's interpretations
>who simply said "Goldman should probably use "shall not"
should have used that language, but we are not in an a priori situation here.
> but for me it's plainly clear that you can only use Marcus here or in you're currently deployed."
Nor are we arguing Goldman's side, which this lawyer-statement does; we are arguing against Goldman, for the client. That's what an attorney should do. Ambiguities in standard contracts are ruled against the author of the contract and in favor of the other signatory. Legalese is still English, and my interpretation of the English language of these terms is completely accurate, and my interpretation of the wiggle room is a reasonable argument to make.
You and he are cleverly smooshing the two sentences together which we are trying to tease apart to determine the meaning.
>which pretty much solidifies how the sentence is to interpreted. I further asked if legally-speaking there is a wiggle room and he simply said "Accessing Marcus while on vacation would technically violate this provision, so I don't think there is a wiggle room here."
not to me.
Goldman is not asserting this clause. Why the hell would assert it for them? If it comes up, we argue for wiggle room, not against it. Period.
The lawyer is correct that, if OP is deciding what account to open, and planning to follow the geographic trajectory that he followed, no, don't open this account. But that's not where we are. We argue from where we are, not coulda woulda shoulda.
You are weirdly obsessed with this, and not very good at it.
I've worked with very good attorneys before, the top in NYC. They can still use help from the client's perspective, always, and very clever people can think of things that other people can't, for example the numerous Feynmann escapades outside his area of expertise.
Also you might read my other comments to OP which explain how to solve this problem.
But, "It may not be an appropriate movie for you to watch" is not "you may not watch it".
Different usages.