Yes, the apostrophe after ‘days’ makes the original sentence grammatical as James has reminded. However, as regards the redundancy pointed out, I’d say it is like ‘city of London’, and ‘trait of honesty’ while London is a city and honesty is a trait. I think such redundant words are harmless as they add more clarity and identity to what is being talked about.
One of the possible explanations:
“You can, however, use time when you are saying how long it will be before something happens. For example, you can say “We are getting married in two years’ time.”
The exchange ends officially in a month’s time.
In a few months’ time, she may change her mind.” thefreedictionary.com/%20time
Back to your reference that ‘time’ is redundant in the expression
I would suggest that adding the word ‘time’ is used to highlight the urgency of the period of time. In this sentence -
In two weeks’ time your driving licence expires.
There is an urgency here reminding you that you haven’t got much time left to do something about renewing your licence. If you omit ‘time’ in that sentence, you are merely stating the fact.
Good point. Perhaps in your second sentence there is not so much urgency as emphasis. In other words the speaker is suggesting that there will not be a long time to wait for the other person to be able to speak to the judge. In my earlier example I was illustrating the urgency to get the licence renewed. In a general sense I think it better to explain the use of ‘time’ in these expressions is to highlight/emphasise the duration.
I’ll have another go. Many years ago when I had to do National Service (I still shudder at the waste of time it was) the length of time was 2 years. If I said - ‘In two years I shall train to be a soldier’ - I am talking about what happens in those two years. If I say - In two years’ time I shall be able to leave the Army and go to university - I am talking about what happens when the two year period has come to an end. Is that any better?
Ah, yes I think now I got it. ‘In two years time’ means ‘in two years from now’ whereas ‘in two years’ just describes the duration of a process but doesn’t say anything about when it actually happens. Many thanks for your persistence, as you can see, I’m still able to learn ;-)[YSaerTTEW443543]
Still, there are lots of cases when the word ‘time’ is redundant. For example, when the presenter on the BBC says ‘more on this story in a few minutes’ time’ when from the context it’s perfectly clear that just in a couple of minutes from speaking she’s returning to the story in question.[YSaerTTEW443543]
I can see you are not going to let this one go - you’re like a dog with a bone. Back to our BBC presenter - the use of ‘time’ in your example is deliberately added to grab the listener’s attention. In other words - don’t go away because the topic is going to be discussed very shortly. More to chew on?