What&#39;s the difference between a full and final settlement and either merely a full or merely a final settlement?
<p>Perhaps the phrase was designed to mitigate caveats of either one or another... What would these have been?</p>
<p>And secondly, realistically, would a court ever uphold the difference between a settlement described in one of these terms but not both?</p>

<p>A “full and final settlement” is a complete resolution of all matters in dispute between the parties.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>A partial settlement probably needs no further explanation - some things are dealt with and some things aren’t.</p>
<p>An interim settlement an be almost anything:</p>
<ul>
<li>an agreement pending the outcome of a further process: negotiation, arbitration, litigation, whatever.</li>
<li>a payment on account because a final payment cannot yet be determined, similar to interim and final dividends from a company.</li>
<li>an interim award from an arbitration or judicial process.</li>
<li>a payment by instalments.</li>
<li>anything else you can think of.</li>
</ul>

legal-terms settlement