Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006

If you said "any claim," someone might advance the argument that only
the first claim is covered by the obligation to defend, because
"claim" is singular. I don't like this argument, and I don't think it
would prevail if argued to a sane judge, but why buy trouble?  But
then, that's not what you asked about.

What you asked is whether there's any significant difference between
"any and all claims" and just plain "all claims."  I don't see any
(any pun strictly inadvertent).  Perhaps the best reason to continue
using "any and all" is simply that it's well-established and known to
cover the necessary ground.  Someone might wonder why you left out
"any and", were you to do so.  Many legal formulations persist simply
because their legal consequences are known and there's no reason to
bother changing them, even to save ink.

Slowly, over time, legal language is being simplified.  The glacial
pace makes it hard to tell, and there's many a backslide.  The need to
have the words actually mean what they're supposed to mean places a
severe restriction on the legal draftsperson.[1]  Ernest Gowers made
this point in "Plain Words" and in the "officialese" article of Fowler
II.  Still, if you compare a standard contract of today with one of
similar coverage from, say, 1806, you'll see that the language is
quite a bit plainer today than it was back then.

[1]  Yeah, I could have said "drafter," but that's not as fun.

There's a lot of redundant-sounding language in legalese (e.g. "over and
above", "above and beyond", "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth" (with the first "truth" being redundant)). They may represent fine
distinctions in meaning, but they may be some kind of eupho,nic tradition.
I'm not a lawyer.

"All" v "any and all": Saying "The Seller shall defend the Buyer from
all claims" puts an obligation on the Seller to do just that, even if
one or more of the claims are deemed fraudulant on behalf of the Buyer,
and even if any of the claims were deemed otherwise false. (Not being
used to legalese in a Seller/Buyer situation, I can't be very specific
here. Basically, I think using "all claims" obligates the Seller more
than is advisable. Some language would have to be added to state
exceptions.)

"Any" v "any and all": Let's say that you have claims A through Z. As
the esteemed attorney and AUE RR Robert Lieblich, Esq., has said, a
simple "any" (as opposed to "any and all") could limit the seller to the
defense of one claim, say, Claim A. "Any and all" states that the seller
will defend all the claims -- B-through-Z as well as A.

Note that a change to "any and/or all" could possibly give the Seller
(and the Buyer?) a bit more wiggle room. (Note that I said "possibly.")

(I am not a lawyer, but have worked with lawyers in writing
company/employment policies.)