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?
asked Aug 31, 2022 at 8:23
JosephCorrectEnglishPronounsJosephCorrectEnglishPronouns
6,3713 gold badges28 silver badges73 bronze badges
-
1It is a literary device that can be read as "fully (completely) final." See A challenge to hendiadys in the law (2020).– sjyCommented Aug 31, 2022 at 14:09
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
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.
