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.