What strikes me as so funny about this is that in formal logic, "or" can by itself mean "x or y or both." There is nothing about the disjunctive that requires only one or the other. It's amazing to me that these judges can compose such vitriol based on and/or.

Of course, for the purposes of keeping contractual language as ultimately clear as possible, it seems that and/or should not be used if for no other reason than that it is not clear that everyone reading that phrase will interpret it the same way.