Prefer: "and" is most often used in legal literaly synonymously with and/or—it conveys severalness NOT jointness—their evidence has no INTENT TO EXCLUDE
Dickerson ‘60 – Reed Dickerson has an undergraduate degree (A.B.) from Williams College. He received his LL.B. from the Harvard Law School in 1934. Dickerson also earned a Masters of Law and a Doctor of Juridical Science from Columbia University. He practiced law in Boston and Chicago before teaching at the law schools of Washington University and the University of Pittsburgh. He became an attorney with the Office of Price Administration and then joined the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives. He served as the Deputy Assistant General Counsel of the U. S. Department of Defense and received the Distinguished Civilian Service Award. He came to be known at the “dean of American Legislative Drafting” following the publication of such seminal works as The Fundamentals of Legal Drafting (1965), The Interpretation and Application of Statutes and Cases (1975), and Materials on Legislation (1981). He was often called upon to lend his expertise to foreign governments as well and enjoyed a long-lasting relationship with the UK Parliamentary Counsel Office, “The Difficult Choice Between "And" and "Or",” Department of Legislation, 1960, https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2500&context=facpub, accessed 7-22-2023, HKR-SWY
What has not been so well recognized is that there is a corresponding, though less frequent, uncertainty in the use of "and". Thus, it is not always clear whether the writer intends the several "and" (A and B, jointly or severally) or the joint "and" (A and B, jointly but not severally). This uncertainty will surprise some, because "and" is normally used in the former sense. Even so, the authors of documents sometimes intend things to be done jointly or not at all. This idea inheres in the purchase of a pair of shoes (try to buy one shoe separately!) without, however, posing any grammatical problem. On the other hand, a reference to "husbands and wives" may create a grammatical uncertainty as to whether the right, privilege, or duty extends to husbands without wives, and vice versa, or whether it may be enjoyed or discharged only jointly.3 Where such a doubt exists, it is desirable to recognize and deal with it.
Observation of legal usage suggests that in most cases "or" is used in the inclusive rather than the exclusive sense, while "and" is used in the several rather than the joint sense. If true, this is significant for legal draftsmen and other writers, because it means that in the absence of special circumstances they can rely on simple "or's" and "and's" to carry these respective meanings. This, incidentally, greatly reduces the number of occasions for using the undesirable expression "and/or" or one of its more respectable equivalents, such as "A or B, or both", or "either or both of the following".