Definition
A qualifying phrase inserted in a deed, conveyance, lease, or contract of sale immediately following a statement of quantity — of land, weight, measure, or number — to indicate that the stated figure is an approximation only and is not warranted as exact. When "more or less" appears in a conveyance, the described tract passes as a whole without regard to whether the actual quantity proves greater or smaller than stated. Neither party may rescind or seek adjustment for a discrepancy that falls within the reasonable range the phrase contemplates, provided there was no fraud or bad faith in arriving at the stated figure.
The phrase does not excuse gross or material discrepancies. It protects against accidental, slight, and unimportant variations — the ordinary imprecision of estimation — not against errors so substantial as to defeat the reasonable expectations of the parties.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Approximately; almost; to varying extents depending on context. Used informally to hedge a claim or soften a statement.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Approximately; with some degree of variation; used to express that an amount is not exact.
The gap matters in legal documents. In ordinary speech, "more or less" is a casual hedge with no particular legal consequence. In a deed or contract of sale, it is a term of art that allocates risk for quantity discrepancies and has been extensively interpreted by courts. A researcher encountering the phrase in a legal instrument cannot treat it as mere informality — it carries a defined, enforceable meaning that strips a party of the ability to rely on the stated quantity as a warranty.
Common Confusion
The phrase is sometimes confused with a warranty of approximate quantity — it is the opposite. It is also sometimes read as permitting any discrepancy, however large. Both readings are wrong. "More or less" excludes fraud and bad faith and does not protect against a deficiency or excess so large as to be unreasonable on its face. The line between a protected variation and an actionable misrepresentation is a factual question, but the phrase does not nullify that inquiry entirely.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working with historical conveyances, land grants, and real property contracts will encounter "more or less" with high frequency, particularly in nineteenth-century American deeds where precise survey measurement was often impractical or unavailable. The phrase is a standard protective device in that era's drafting.
The critical research trap is context-dependency. "More or less" in a deed of real property carries the most developed body of interpretation. The same phrase in a contract for the sale of goods (grain, timber, livestock, bulk commodities) operates similarly but the tolerated range of variation may be interpreted differently based on trade custom and the nature of the commodity. Researchers should not assume that case law developed in a real property context applies without qualification to a commercial sale context.
A second trap involves the scope of protection. The phrase does not eliminate an action for fraudulent misrepresentation. Several sources — particularly Anderson's and Bouvier's — make clear that the qualification operates only in the absence of fraud or want of good faith. Researchers reviewing litigation arising from "more or less" disputes should expect courts to examine whether the stated quantity was offered honestly or as a knowing misrepresentation dressed in protective language.
Jurisdictional variation in how courts define "reasonable" discrepancy means that the phrase cannot be interpreted in isolation. The percentage or absolute amount of variation that defeats the phrase's protection has been resolved differently across state courts and in federal land cases. Brawley v. United States, 96 U.S. 168 (1877), cited in Black's 2nd edition, is the anchor federal case and a starting point for tracing the doctrine.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries agree on the core function: "more or less" imports that stated quantity is uncertain and unwarranted, and prevents either party from using a discrepancy to avoid the contract. Black's (both editions), Bouvier's, Burrill's, and Anderson's all converge on this point without meaningful disagreement.
Burrill's is notable for supplying the Latin equivalent — sive plus, sive minus — useful for researchers reading older English and early American legal documents where the Latin form may appear in place of or alongside the English phrase.
Anderson's adds the most nuance among the historical sources, framing the phrase as protecting against "accidental variations arising from slight and unimportant excesses or deficiencies" and specifying that neither party may avoid the contract if the discrepancy was not the product of fraud or bad faith. This formulation is the most analytically useful in the historical corpus.
Bouvier's confirms extension beyond real property to contracts of sale generally, with a citation to 2 B. & Ad. 106, supporting the phrase's application in commercial contexts.
What the historical sources collectively underemphasize is the question of degree — at what point does a discrepancy become large enough to defeat the phrase's protection? The dictionaries set the standard conceptually (not large, not fraudulent) without providing numerical guidance, which is where the case law becomes essential.
Jurisdictional Note
The doctrine is well settled at common law and in most American jurisdictions, but courts have reached different conclusions about the threshold of discrepancy that renders "more or less" ineffective. Federal land grant cases developed their own line of authority. Researchers should locate jurisdiction-specific case law rather than relying on general common law formulations.