When words and phrases combine together into whole clauses, the manner in which they combine can result in quite different meanings and in structural ambiguities that lead to lawsuits. Chapter 4 considers an “attachment ambiguity” in a false advertising suit, as in WE ARE PROVIDING GREAT REFRESHMENTS DURING THE SUPER BOWL AT CANDLESTICK PARK. The refreshments were not actually offered onsite at Candlestick Park, but at some distance from it. The ambiguity involves whether AT CANDLESTICK PARK modifies the verb, ‘We are providing at Candlestick Park great refreshments during the Super Bowl,’ or the noun phrase THE SUPER BOWL, in which case it is logically asserted only that the Super Bowl takes place there. In this latter attachment, questions of contextual inference and real-world knowledge then come into play and can still “implicate” that the services are also provided at Candlestick Park. More complex syntax, involving subordinate clauses and phrases that follow SUBJECT TO, resulted in a dispute over when or whether at all the prior condition for sale specified in this real-estate contract needed to be met. The subordinating conjunction ALTHOUGH and its “implicatures” were at the center of a libel suit in which unprofessional conduct by a lawyer and drinking to excess were alleged.