I’ve got two complaints about this news article. One, the problem is with spelling, not semantics. Two, the reporter automatically assigned blame to a legal assistant for the typos:
"Court documents can say the most amusing things. What’s wrong with this sentence?
"’We can only view AT&T’s and Cingular’s continued attempt to jeopardize NASCAR’s relationship with NETEL as tortuous interference with this agreement."
[snip]
"Enough of being torturous of the poor legal assistant who probably made the typos. In his or her defense, ‘Nextel’ won’t pass word-processor spellcheck in any form. And ‘tortious‘ is such a fine legal term that it isn’t in standard spellcheck memory. But ‘tortuous’ is.
"The point is that in this, of all cases, you’d think NASCAR’s general counsel’s office would be more meticulous in its proofreading."
Yes, you would…..