I doubt I'll be able to ever find it again, but when I was working in the Casualty Insurance business, I had a copy of a judge's discussion of 'and/or'. He thoroughly demonized it, and the upshot was that when any lawyer is lazy enough to use such a phrase rather than stating specifically what is intended, the contract will be decided to the detriment of the drafter.

Alan

>It seems that a fairly notorious former president had a similar problem with definitions of words. I somehow remember something asbout a variable definition of "is".
>
>Glenn
>
>>>>>From section #7 of my EULA for VFP7 "...A SOFTWARE PRODUCT labeled as an upgrade replaces and/or supplements the product that formed the basis for your eligibility for the upgrade. You may use the resulting upgraded product only in accordance with the terms of this EULA." it is quite clear that "supplements" is in addition to the word "replaces" and "supplements" can in no way be construed as unclear, can it?!?!?
>>
>>>>I guess it depends on your interpretation of the word "supplements".
>>
>>>Actually, it depends on how you interpret "and/or". :-(
>>
>>To be more precise, the actual meaning of "/" is a matter of interpretation, and there may be some suftle nuances in the meaning that may affect the effect.