Perhaps the phrase was designed to mitigate caveats of either one or another... What would these have been?

And secondly, realistically, would a court ever uphold the difference between a settlement described in one of these terms but not both?


1 Answer 1


A “full and final settlement” is a complete resolution of all matters in dispute between the parties.

This can be contrasted with both a partial settlement, which resolves some but not all issues, and an interim settlement, which means something still remains to be done.

A partial settlement probably needs no further explanation - some things are dealt with and some things aren’t.

An interim settlement an be almost anything:

  • an agreement pending the outcome of a further process: negotiation, arbitration, litigation, whatever.
  • a payment on account because a final payment cannot yet be determined, similar to interim and final dividends from a company.
  • an interim award from an arbitration or judicial process.
  • a payment by instalments.
  • anything else you can think of.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .