I've come across some weird capitalization in legal texts. I've seen it multiple times, so I wanted to ask if anyone knew if there were different schools of thought on this issue. Here's an example: <begin quote> It advises

And/or just means that either "and" or "or" may be used in the sentence. In pure logic, OR means and/or, and XOR (exclusive or) means or. Observe: A AND B : Both A and B must exist A OR B : A must exist, or B must exist, or both A and B

Lazy English? Poor grammar? I think implied subject is as close as you can get.

Any is an adjective meaning "of whatever number or quantity." You could just as well say "is there a book" or "are there books." But we usually say "is there any book" and "are there any books." Singular vs. plural is a non-issue as far

I generally prefer to avoid the vernacular. I particularly dislike "surfing the Internet" for some reason. So I usually just go ahead and make it more specific and meaningful: "I researched on the Internet . . . ." "I browsed the Web . .

seems like a tough on to me. I would agree with C. Criminality is contained within the larger set of Law. Factionalism could be said to be contained within the larger set of Consensus (which is not necessarily unanimous agreement, but just

Absolutely nothing, except what you see and hear when you read it. It would simply be a stylistic choice. Grammatically they are tautological (identical). Tim

we were talking about this in the legal english forum. We decided that "for" was unnecessary. My opinion is that formal syntax should include how the thing is free . For example, "free of charge," "free from captivity," "free to choose," etc.

Which is the same thing as a contingency arrangment.

Gifts can be tricky. Generally you're going to have a hard time showing superior right over the "giver," since you didn't pay anything. The good news is that you certainly have a right in the increased value of the car due to your repairs