I am dealing with the following (poorly written) contract language.

"x is to be paid if, as, and when all the y properties sell"

my argument needs to be that payment is to occur as each property sells

my opponent is arguing that "all" in this context creates a condition precedent such that "all of the properties" must be sold before any payment has to be made.

so far i have pointed to the coupling of future tense "paid" with present tense "sells" to argue that payment occurs at time of each sale. I am trying to decide the best argument for my position that "all the properties" is a subject term as oppose to creating a condition precedent.

I have researched "all" vs "all of" but I am really having a hard time deciding on best approach as grammar and semantics is not my strong suit (no did not write the agreement).

thanks for any insight or help!!!

The sentence is contradictory…and thereby lies your loophole.

"x is to be paid if all the y properties sell."
"x is to be paid when all the y properties sell"

Both the above indicate total payment on total completion of sales.

BUT:

as : used to indicate that something happens DURING the time when something else is taking place

So - something happens(payment)…

during the time when something else is taking place (the selling)

That is, payment occurs pari passu with each sale.

Or
The contract is null and void for the very reason that the stipulations are contradictory and mutually exclusive: you can't both (i) pay as you go along AND (ii) make total payment after completion of all sales.

pari passu : side by side; at the same and equal rate

thanks for the reply. your comments are very useful. They also confirm some of my other thoughts. any other input or analysis much appreciated.