The sentence construction is odd, I think because they ran two logical sentences together without really thinking about conjunctions required.
As written I'd interpret it as ((NOT (A OR B)) AND C). But that's largely because "while" is repeated against C, but it's not repeated against "B", so the negation ("while not") carries from A to B, but is removed for C. The lack of both "or" and "and" in the sentence (the individual parts are simply abutted together, with "while" being forced to serve as the conjunction) makes interpretation tricky. But legal drafters have managed far worse.
The "neither/nor, and" combination would be much more readable. I'd recommend they find a copy-editor familiar with grammar :-)
Garlic || !Garlic
As written I'd interpret it as ((NOT (A OR B)) AND C). But that's largely because "while" is repeated against C, but it's not repeated against "B", so the negation ("while not") carries from A to B, but is removed for C. The lack of both "or" and "and" in the sentence (the individual parts are simply abutted together, with "while" being forced to serve as the conjunction) makes interpretation tricky. But legal drafters have managed far worse.
The "neither/nor, and" combination would be much more readable. I'd recommend they find a copy-editor familiar with grammar :-)
Ewen