And/or is an Englishgrammatical conjunction used to indicate thatone, more, or all of the cases it connects may occur. It is used as an inclusiveor (as in logic and mathematics), because saying "or" in spoken or written English might be inclusive orexclusive.
The construction has been used in official,legal, and businessdocuments since the mid-19th century, and evidence of broader use appears in the 20th century.[1] It has been criticized as both ugly in style—by manystyle guides, including the classicThe Elements of Style (fromWilliam Strunk, Jr. andE.B. White)—and ambiguous in legal documents—by American and Britishcourts.
Two alternatives have been proposed. The first, when used for just two items, is to replace "x and/ory" with "x ory or both."[2][3][4] The second is to simply choose which ofand oror to use.[4]
The wordor does not entail mutual exclusivity by itself. The wordeither can be used to convey mutual exclusivity. "When usingeither as a conjunction, [it can be applied] to more than two elements in a series."[5] Thus,
"He will eateither cake, pie, or brownies"
appropriately indicates that the choices are mutually exclusive. If the function ofor is clear from the context, it is not necessary to useeither as a conjunction:[citation needed]
Person 1: You may selectone item for dessert.
Person 2: What are my choices?
Person 1: You may eat cake, pie, or brownies.
References on English usage strongly criticize the phrase as "ugly"[2] and "Janus-faced".[4]William Strunk, Jr., andE.B. White, in their classicThe Elements of Style–recognized byTime one of the 100 best and most influential non-fiction books written in English since 1923,[6] sayand/or is "A device, or shortcut, that damages a sentence and often leads to confusion or ambiguity".[3] Roy H. Copperud, inA Dictionary of Usage and Style, says that the phrase is "Objectionable to many, who regard it as a legalism".[7]
The phrase has come under criticism in both American and British courts.[8][9] Judges have called it a "freakish fad", an "accuracy-destroying symbol", and "meaningless".[8] In aWisconsin Supreme Court opinion from 1935, JusticeChester A. Fowler referred to it as "that befuddling, nameless thing, that Janus-faced verbal monstrosity, neither word nor phrase, the child of a brain of someone too lazy or too dull to know what he did mean".[10] TheKentucky Supreme Court has said it was a "much-condemned conjunctive-disjunctive crutch of sloppy thinkers".[8] Finally, theFlorida Supreme Court has denounced the use of "and/or", stating
...we take our position with that distinguished company of lawyers who have condemned its use. It is one of those inexcusable barbarisms which were sired by indolence and damned by indifference, and has no more place in legal terminology than the vernacular ofUncle Remus has inHoly Writ. I am unable to divine how such senseless jargon becomes current. The coiner of it certainly had no appreciation for terse and concise law English.[11]
Other authorities point out that it is usually quite unambiguous and can be the most efficient way to indicate the inclusiveor in some contexts. Kenneth Adams, lecturer at theUniversity of Pennsylvania Law School, andAlan S. Kaye, professor of linguistics atCalifornia State University, write, "It does, after all, have a specific meaning—X and/or Y meansX or Y or both." However, the authors state that it should not be used in language of obligation.[12]
The legal usage authorityBryan A. Garner stated that use of the term is particularly harmful in legal writing because a bad-faith reader of a contract can pick whichever suits them, theand or theor.[13] Courts called on to interpret it have applied a wide variety of standards, with little agreement.[14]
