I dare add that, in my view, the term “and/or” is at best a vague and ambiguous term that should not be used in official court documents that affect the interests of property (Lord Russell, at p. 64). To impose a legal obligation, use “must”. To predict future actions, use “Wille”. DO NOT SAY: The governor should approve it. SAY: The governor has to approve it. [Commitment] OR: The governor will approve it. [future action] 4. Be direct. Talk directly to your readers. Use the imperative mood.
Regulations are suitable for this style, especially procedures, instructions and to-do lists. Franchise avoids liabilities:SAY: Sign all copies. SAY: Attach a copy of your W-2 to your return. This style leads to shorter, sharper and easier to understand procedures. 5. Use the present tense. A regulation with lasting effect speaks of when you apply it, not when you draft it or when it comes into force. For this reason, you should write regulations in the present tense. By drawing in the present, you avoid complicated and cumbersome verbal forms.
DON`T SAY: The fine for driving without a driver`s license is $10.00. SAY: The fine for driving without a driver`s license is $10.00. 6. Write positively. If you can express an idea positively or negatively, express it positively. DO NOT SAY: The Governor may not appoint persons other than those qualified by the Personnel Management Agency. SAY: The governor must appoint a person qualified by the human resources management agency. A negative statement can be clear. Use it when notifying the reader. DO NOT WALK, DO NOT SMOKE But avoid several negatives in one sentence.
DO NOT SAY: A demonstration project will only be approved if all the requirements of the application are met. SAY: A demonstration project will only be approved if the applicant meets all the requirements. It is better to express even a negative in positive form. The use of the term and/or is widely used in legal language. Lawyers use it in all sorts of legal contexts – including laws, contracts, and pleadings. Beginning in the 1930s, however, many judges decided that the term and/or should never be used in legal elaboration. Fierce attacks on the term included allegations that it was vague or even meaningless, with some authorities declaring it a “janus-headed verbal monstrosity,” “inexcusable barbarity,” “mestizo expression,” “odious invention,” a “crutch of sloppy thinkers,” and “useless jargon.” Even today, critics claim that construction and/or inherently ambiguous and should be avoided as much as possible – which, as many critics would say, is still the case. And/or, however, is not ambiguous at all.
It has a specific and agreed meaning: when used correctly, the construction means “A or B or both”. In most areas of law, there is simply no compelling reason to avoid using and/or. The term is clear and concise. It stems from criticism mainly of people`s inability to use it properly. Procedural documents, treaties, statutes and patent claims all allow for a convincing use of and/or. Conversely, some areas of law – such as jury orders, search warrants, and jury verdicts – generally do not allow an author to offer options that make them inappropriate or that are inappropriate. Despite the few contexts in which and/or should be avoided, construction should not be rejected simply because individuals occasionally abuse the term. Finally, lawyers and courts often find it difficult to use and interpret “and” and “or, words that are themselves interspersed with ambiguities.
And/or has an exact meaning; It allows the possibility to promote alternative options. As with many constant errors in legal drafting, the problem lies not in the concept and/or in itself, but in a lack of attention to detail. Legal drafters should use it with the same care as they use any other word or phrase. For several reasons, it is not necessary to write the “combination of slashes”, not even to simplify or to keep the text short. First, the author imposes on each reader of the treatise the need to do the work of reflection, which the author has failed to do. Second, simplification consists in the fact that the actual meaning of and/or (i.e. the choice between A or B or A or B or both) is somehow left to the reader. This allows the reader to choose one or the other and/or the most favorable interpretation. Third, the use and/or total non-compliance with the editorial principle of accuracy. Specifically, the verse is largely redundant because the word or logically and grammatically encompasses the same meaning: or is “inclusive.” What and/or attempts to address is the mental paranoia that A or B could be interpreted more “exclusively” than “inclusive”: the exclusive meaning would be that A or B could be understood as A or B, but not as both.
What the use and/or actually does makes it even worse. 19. Write short sentences. Readable sentences are simple, active, affirmative and declarative. The more a sentence deviates from this structure, the more difficult the sentence is to understand. Long and long-lasting sanctions are a fundamental weakness of legal documents. Legal documents often contain conditions that lead to complex sentences with many clauses. The more complex the sentence, the more difficult it may be to determine the intended meaning of the sentence.