Opinion ID: 6329210
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Meaning of the Word “And”

Text: The use of the word “and” in the settlement agreement’s phrase, “police reports, receipts[,] and pricing,” does not undermine the preceding analysis. It is true that the general rule is that the word “and” should be understood in its “‘ordinary’ conjunctive sense.” OfficeMax, 428 F.3d at 589 (citing another source). However, just as well established is that “and” can be either conjunctive or disjunctive depending on the fuller context. Noell v. Am. Design, Inc., 764 F.2d 827, 833 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted) (“It is an established princip[le] [t]hat the word ‘or’ is frequently construed to mean ‘and,’ and vice versa, in order to carry out the evident intent of the parties.”). As the Fifth Circuit artfully put it: “[T]he word ‘and’ is not a word with a single meaning, for chameleonlike, it takes its color from its surroundings.” Peacock v. Lubbock Compress Co., 252 F.2d 892, 893 (5th Cir. 1958). By way of example, the Sixth Circuit has interpreted the word “and” in the disjunctive when reviewing a telecommunications statute. Officemax, 428 F.3d at 588. That statute defined “communications services” as “local telephone service, toll telephone service, and teletypewriter exchange service.” Id. (emphasis added). “And” connoted the disjunctive because those three communications services were “generally mutually exclusive and because no service exists that can satisfy all three definitions at once.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit embraced a similar approach when reviewing a retirement plan under which an employee forfeited accrued benefits if he were found “guilty of committing theft, fraud or embezzlement . . . and if he [was] determined to have disclosed or released to third parties the Employer’s trade secrets.” Noell, 764 F.2d at 829 (emphasis added). “And” was read in the disjunctive because, if it were given its literal interpretation, then the forfeiture clause would only be triggered where an employee was first found guilty of theft, fraud, or embezzlement and then - 16 - No. 20-3913, Cyrus v. Univ. of Toledo, et al. later disclosed trade secrets to a third party. Id. at 833 (“It would be unreasonable to conclude that an employer, who has provided its employees with benefits in excess of those required by law, would place such an onerous burden on itself with respect to the termination of the benefits.”). So, even though the policy clearly used the word “and,” the Eleventh Circuit held it to mean that either a conviction of theft, fraud, or embezzlement or disclosing trade secrets to third parties were alone sufficient to revoke the accrued benefits. The rationales animating Officemax and Noell extend to this case. Any one of the three example categories of adequate documentation, i.e., “police reports, receipts[,] and pricing,” alone might be sufficient to pinpoint the exact amount of lost inventory. The word “and” in the phrase “police reports, receipts[,] and pricing” signifies the disjunctive because any three of those categories could establish what amount, under the agreed-upon ceiling of $15,000, OOD would be required to credit Cyrus’ inventory.