It seems to me that this is redundant, is there some legal distinction between these two things? In other words, legally, is it possible to cease and not desist or vice versa?
According to wikipedia, to cease is to “halt” an activity, and to desist is not to “take it up again later” Cease and desist - Wikipedia
I’ve heard there are some legal doubles (will and testament) that pair an Anglo-Saxon based word with an Adopted French word as an aftermath of Hastings kind of thing.
This is an example of legal doublets:
There are lots of these. Here’s some I can think of:
[li]Cease and desist[/li][li]Breaking and entering[/li][li]Waive and relinquish[/li][li]Aidin’ an’ abettin’ [/li][li]Null and void[/li][li]Lewd and lascivious[/li][li]Goods and chattels[/li][/ul]
Wikipedia calls them legal doublets and has a good list.
Only if you do depose and say that you will covenant and agree to obey all of the terms and conditions by and between the parties that make and enter into this contract, which shall have sole and exclusive power and authority over all goods and chattels and amounts that are due and payable and bind and obligate the parties and their heirs and successors from now and henceforth, that you will at no time engage in lewd and lascivious conduct of whatever kind and nature, and will pay due care and attention not to aid and abet acts that that are not appropriate and proper or that would render the contract that has been made and entered into null and void.
Well, thank God that’s cleared up!
I mean, thank our Lord and God that the aforementioned and stated question and query has been clarified and elucidated.
Actually, I’m pretty sure breaking and entering are two legally separate things.
Breaking refers to obtaining unlawful access (i.e. literally breaking a window or wall, picking the lock, etc.).
Entering is using the access you’ve thus gained.
If you give your neighbor a house key for emergencies and they use it to come in and munch your food they’re guilty of entering, but not breaking.
Still, some input from somebody who actually practices law would be appreciated.
No, all you have to do is open a door without permission to be guilty of breaking and entering. No actual breaking of anything required.
Having a key provided by the owner would probably be considered authorization to enter, but taking food might be a different matter. And I suppose that entering through a door left standing open would still be a trespass.
Your cite says it requires “the slightest amount of force”. That’s the breaking part.
I’d hate to be the lawyer who invoked only one half of a legal doublet on behalf of a client who turns out to be primarily interested in the other one.
Yes, but merely pushing a door open or opening a window is enough, even if unlocked. (PDF. Top of page two.)
A little off topic (as cease and desist clearly have distinct meanings). I have a vague recollection of a court addressing apparent synonyms - in a contract I believe. I’ll see if anything bubbles up in the grey matter, but I recall the court holding smething like the 2 apparent synonyms MUST have somewhat different meanings, or else they would not have both been included in the contract. I think one party was suggesting the one term meant something in his favor, while the other contended they were simply duplicative.
A couple of my favorite legal pairings are arbitrary and capricious, and detour and frolic. Frolicking always sounds so fun!
“but going in through an unobstructed entrance — such as an open door — is not.”
There’s nothing wrong with redundancy, especially in legal matters. It helps to eliminate confusion and prevents fraud.
For instance, if you the order were just to “cease” something, another lawyer could say his client did “cease” something, even if he didn’t “desist” from doing it. Then you get into a big argument as to the precise meaning of the term.
Ain’t our language wonderful…
Plus, in a cease or desist letter, no one’s sure if they’re allowed to do both.
Signed, sealed, delivered I’m yours.
Weddings are the same… “to have and to hold” means now and in the future.
The origin of “legal couplets” is a time when both Anglo-Saxon and Norman were spoken in England. In each couplet, one word is Saxon and one is Norman. The purpose was to make clear what you should do, regardless of your native language. In modern English the meanings of the words within the couplet have diverged, but at the time they were synonyms. Today couplets have no purpose other than legalistic flourish. Like Miranda warnings, the public has come to expect them and feels something is “wrong” if they aren’t used.