# Cease and desist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 19, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402 "2013-06-19T22:36:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/1 "2013-06-19T22:36:38Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![silverfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e480ec/32.png) [@silverfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silverfish)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/2 "2013-06-19T22:58:56Z")
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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desist) ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/3 "2013-06-19T23:17:28Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/4 "2013-06-19T23:32:19Z")
This is an example of legal doublets: > **[Legal doublet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_doublet)** > > A legal doublet is a standardized phrase used frequently in English legal language consisting of two or more words that are irreversible binomials and frequently synonyms, usually connected by "and", such as "null and void". The order of the words cannot be reversed, as it would be particularly unusual to ask someone to desist and cease or to have property owned clear and free; these common legal phrases are universally known as cease and desist and free and clear. > The doubling—and sometimes eve... ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/5 "2013-06-19T23:35:32Z")
There are lots of these. Here’s some I can think of: [ul] [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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_doublet) and has a good list. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/6 "2013-06-19T23:51:47Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/7 "2013-06-20T00:41:10Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > 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? > [@robert\_columbia](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/8 "2013-06-20T01:22:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/9 "2013-06-20T03:22:11Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > 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](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/breaking+and+entering) 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. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/10 "2013-06-20T03:40:25Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > No, all you have to do is [open a door without permission](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/breaking+and+entering) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/11 "2013-06-20T03:45:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/12 "2013-06-20T04:05:33Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Your cite says it requires “the slightest amount of force”. That’s the breaking part. Yes, but merely pushing a door open or opening a window is enough, [even if unlocked](http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/jury-instructions/criminal/pdf/8100-breaking-and-entering.pdf). (PDF. Top of page two.) ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/13 "2013-06-20T11:51:18Z")
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! 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/14 "2013-06-20T12:02:43Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > Yes, but merely pushing a door open or opening a window is enough, [even if unlocked](http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/jury-instructions/criminal/pdf/8100-breaking-and-entering.pdf). (PDF. Top of page two.) “but going in through an unobstructed entrance — such as an open door — is not.” ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/15 "2013-06-20T12:03:24Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/16 "2013-06-20T12:06:17Z")
Ain’t our language wonderful…🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/17 "2013-06-20T12:09:28Z")
Plus, in a cease or desist letter, no one’s sure if they’re allowed to do both. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/18 "2013-06-20T12:23:05Z")
Signed, sealed, delivered I’m yours. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/19 "2013-06-20T12:24:29Z")
Weddings are the same… “to have and to hold” means now and in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402/20 "2013-06-20T14:50:54Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cease-and-desist/661402.md?page=2)