“May But Is Not Required To”

Reader Mike reminded me of the usage may but is not required to, as in the following provision:

Indevus may, but is not required to, assist Esprit, at Esprit’s election, in Esprit’s efforts to seek and obtain FDA Approvals, subject to reimbursement of Indevus’ related costs and expenses.

The word that comes to mind is “lame”—may expresses discretion, so is not required to is redundant. Am I missing something?

By the way, this usage is related to may at its discretion.

About the author

Ken Adams is the leading authority on how to say clearly whatever you want to say in a contract. He’s author of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, and he offers online and in-person training around the world. He’s also chief content officer of LegalSifter, Inc., a company that combines artificial intelligence and expertise to assist with review of contracts.