The use of the term and/or is ubiquitous in legal language. Lawyers use it in all sorts of legal contexts – including laws, contracts, and briefs. Beginning in the 1930s, however, many judges decided that the term and/or should never be used in legal writing. Passionate attacks on the term included accusations that it was vague, if not meaningless, with some authorities calling it a “verbal monstrosity in the face of Janus,” “inexcusable barbarism,” a “mestizo expression,” a “despicable invention,” a “crutch of sloppy thinkers,” and “crazy jargon.” Even today, critics argue that construction and/or inherently ambiguous and should be avoided as much as possible – which, as many critics will well say, is still the case. And/or is not ambiguous at all. It has a specific and agreed meaning: when used correctly, the building means “A or B or both”. In most jurisdictions, there is simply no compelling reason to avoid using and/or using it. The term is clear and concise. It draws criticism mainly from people`s inability to use it properly.

Pleadings, treaties, laws, and patent claims all allow for compelling use of and/or. Conversely, some areas of law – such as jury directions, search warrants and jury verdicts – generally do not allow an author to offer appropriate or inappropriate options. Despite the few contexts in which and/or should be avoided, the concept should not be dismissed simply because individuals occasionally abuse the term. Finally, legal writers and courts often have difficulty using and interpreting “and” and “or”, words that are themselves riddled with ambiguity. And/or has an exact meaning; It allows the possibility of promoting alternative options. As is the case 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. Where jurisdiction is challenged, one or more state laws are relevant to the decision-making process. If the laws are the same, it will not be a problem, but if there are substantive differences, the choice of applicable law will lead to a different judgment. Each state therefore creates a set of rules to guide the choice of law, and one of the most important rules is that the law to be applied in a particular situation is the right law. It is the law that appears to have the closest and most real connection to the facts of the case and therefore has the best claim to apply.

The term “proper” refers to the old English meaning as “proper to”. In other words, the contract law or the contractual clause or the matter in question. 2. A legally enforceable claim that someone has as a result of certain events or transactions. For example, a person entering into a contract has the right to expect performance or reasonable remuneration from the other party for the non-performance. The doctrine of correct law is applied in the choice of law phase of a conflict of laws dispute. 1) n. a claim to something, whether it be concepts such as justice and due process, or property, or an interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference with the enjoyment of life and property; citizens` civil rights, such as the right to vote and access to justice; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; the human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and to benefit from their work; and U.S.

constitutional guarantees such as the right to freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. 2) adj. just, just, correct. But the problem with accepting a state`s claim to enforce its law is that the result can be somewhat arbitrary. Thus, in the example given, if none of the drivers resided in the state and the cars were both maintained outside the state, the laws of other states may have an equal or superior right to enforcement. The advantage of the right legal approach is that it introduces flexibility rather than offering a mechanical rule. Let us assume that there is a contract between an Italian company and an English partnership for the sale of goods manufactured in Greece to be shipped from Belgium on a Panamanian-flagged vessel to a Swedish port. The adoption of a rule such as the lex loci contractus, i.e. the application of the law of the place where the contract was concluded, could certainly choose a law that had no other connection with the content of the agreement concluded by the parties. Similarly, the selection of the lex loci solutionis, i.e. the law of the place where the contract is to be performed, may also prove irrelevant if it is assumed that there is only one place where performance is to take place: for example, manufacture in Greece, delivery in Belgium, loading in Belgium, transport on the high seas and unloading in Sweden.

Thus, if the contract does not make an express choice of applicable law (see choice of law clause), the parties are deemed to have chosen the law with which the contract has the closest and most real connection. The general rule is that good law is the principal legal system that governs most aspects of the facts underlying the dispute. This does not mean that all aspects of factual circumstances are necessarily subject to the same legal system, but there is a strong presumption that they will (see characterization). Thus, the process of legal analysis carried out by the courts in each case identifies all the facts that have a specific geographical reference, such as where the parties are domiciled or their business operates, where an agreement has been reached, where relevant measures have been taken, etc. Once all relevant connecting factors have been identified, the law of the state with the largest number of connections is the appropriate law. In the event of a tie, performance-related connecting factors are weighted more strongly than the connecting factors in the form. In most cases, this weighting leads to a clear winner. THAT`S RIGHT. What is essential, adapted, adapted and correct. 2. The Congress shall be governed by Art.

1, § 8 of the United States Constitution authorizes “to enact such laws as are necessary and appropriate to exercise in any division the aforesaid powers and all other powers conferred by this Constitution in the United States. or their officer. See necessary and correct. 3. Lose any situation or decision that seems appropriate or just (i.e. the opposite of “evil”) based on legal, moral or ethical ideals. This type of “right” may not be legally enforceable. For example, there can never be a constitution, law or precedent that requires people to respect their elders, although many people agree that it is right to respect elders.

A good part is a person who has an interest in the litigation. He or she can be joined, that is: be included in the action, but his non-intervention does not lead to dismissal. A substantial court order can always be made in the absence of an appropriate party. An ordinary part differs from a necessary part in that the latter must have adhered to provide full relief to litigants. 1) Intentionally dishonest act by failing to comply with legal or contractual obligations, misleading others, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating fundamental standards of honesty in relations with others. Most states recognize the so-called “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” which is violated by acts of bad faith for which a breach suit can be brought (just as one could sue for breach of contract). The issue of bad faith may be raised as a defence to a contract claim. 2) Adj. When there is bad faith, a transaction is called a contract of “bad faith” or an offer of “bad faith”. Law assigned to litigation when one or more laws could be applied. An example may be in the event of a dispute over foreign sales. The correct law is that of the seller`s country of origin.

Suit; That`s right; reasonably adequate. What is well suited or appropriate. Supported by Black`s Law Dictionary, Free 2nd ed., and The Law Dictionary. 1. A power or privilege held by the general public under a constitution, statute, regulation, precedent or other type of law. Appropriate care is the level of care that a reasonable and prudent person would apply in similar circumstances. All laws more or less reflect the public policy of the state that passed them. The more important the policy is to society, the greater the claim of applicable law.

Thus, if there are laws to protect citizens, the law of the place where the loss or damage occurred might have strong claims to apply: for example, in a traffic accident, two cars collide due to poor maintenance and both drivers are injured – local laws exist to provide a certain level of protection to everyone who uses the roads in that state by establishing minimum standards for the design and maintenance of vehicles, setting insurance levels, setting minimum age and qualifications for driving rights. etc..