It matters not what becomes of equipollent expressions.

Explanation

(English-origin maxim.) Where two expressions mean exactly the same thing, it is immaterial which is used — the law does not distinguish between equivalent formulations.

Where this applies

• One version of a contract says the buyer "shall pay" and another says the buyer "must pay" — since both mean the same thing, it doesn't matter which version controls.
• A statute uses "void" in one section and "of no effect" in another to describe the same consequence, and a litigant tries to argue they mean different things — the court says they're equivalent.
• A deed says the property is "conveyed and transferred" to the new owner — the two words mean the same thing, so arguing about whether it was a conveyance or a transfer is pointless.