What does this chunk of language from a contract really say?

The Agent shall maintain for the sale of air cargo transportation office(s) as specified on Annex B attached hereto and all places where it makes air cargo ready for carriage the premises, staff and equipment required by the Carrier.
===============================================
The above piece of language is from a contract in airline business. Its grammatical structure and semantic meaning really confuses me. Hoping some native speaker can offer your generous help. Thanks!~

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd guess it states:

The Agent shall maintain -- for the sale of air cargo transportation:

1) office(s) -- as specified on Annex B attached hereto

-and-

2) premises, staff[,] and equipment -- [at] all places where it makes air cargo ready for carriage -- [as] required by the carrier.

mjd ,thanks for your reply. Well, the thread had been here for quite a while without any reply.
As for your explanation, I must say it is still not wholly clear to me. What about the "premises" part? Should "staff and equipment required by the Carrier" be understood as " handled by staff or equipment"?
It does not quite make sense.

Guest, your explanation makes better sense.
But concerning this part
"all places where it makes air cargo ready for carriage the premises, staff and equipment required by the Carrier"
I find the logic between "all places where it makes air cargo ready for carriage" and "the premises, staff and equipment required by the Carrier" rather confusing. Isn't any grammatical mistake here according to the interpretation you came up with?

<<Isn't any grammatical mistake here according to the interpretation you came up with? >>

It looks to me that there is missing or bad punctuation in the original. If my (non-legal) interpretation is right, you could repunctuate the original as:

The Agent shall maintain, for the sale of air cargo transportation, (1) office(s) as specified on Annex B attached hereto, and (2) all places where it makes air cargo ready for carriage, the premises, staff, and equipment required by the Carrier.

Ideally, there'd be an "at" after (2).

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and perhaps the original punctuation is mandated by conventional practice when drawing up contracts. Maybe the contract lawyers are being tricky -- perhaps, the original punctuation is an attempt at being ambiguous, allowing courts to interpret the contract in different ways later on during an anticipated dispute?

Another interpretation is:

The Agent shall maintain, for the sale of air cargo transportation, (1) office(s) as specified on Annex B attached hereto and all places where it makes air cargo ready for carriage, and (2) the premises, staff and equipment required by the Carrier.

Another possible interpretation:

The Agent shall maintain, for the sale of air cargo transportation, (1) office(s) as specified on Annex B attached hereto, (2) all places where it makes air cargo ready for carriage, and (3) the premises, staff and equipment required by the Carrier.

Yet another interpretation:

The Agent shall maintain, for the sale of air cargo transportation, [at] office(s) as specified on Annex B attached hereto and all places where it makes air cargo ready for carriage, the (1) premises, (2) staff and (3) equipment required by the Carrier.

Guest, you are truly helpful!-:) (But why not have a name when you post?)

the original punctuation is an attempt at being ambiguous
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aha, this suggestion is enlightenning.
I did't expetct there to be multiple interpretations as you listed.
I feel they all make sense.
Could there yet be another interpretation? That is:

For the sale of air cargo transportation office(s) as specified on Annex B attached hereto and all places where it makes air cargo ready for carriage, the Agent shall maintain the premises, staff and equipment required by the Carrier.

So the offices can be considered as an object to be sold, what do you think?

<<So the offices can be considered as an object to be sold, what do you think? >>

I suppose this is a possible interpretation, but it seems less likely.

<<(But why not have a name when you post?) >>

Ok -- but what does it prove?

This sentence has racked my brains.
I think if there is a context, a suitable interpretation will emerge, if the orginal is not intended to be ambiguous.
<<(But why not have a name when you post?) >>

Ok -- but what does it prove?
-------------------------------------------------------------
With a name, it will be more convenient if others refer to your post. Well, there are many "GUEST"s here on this forum.