These two phrases are mutually exclusive and a combination of the two makes no sense:

• 'identification purposes only': if there is a discrepancy between the land shown on the plan and the contract description, with the plan being described as being for 'identification purposes only', then the contract description will prevail over the plan. However, the court can refer to the plan to define the boundaries if the contract description is unclear. But bear in mind that plans described as 'for identification purposes only' are not satisfactory for land registration purposes;
• 'more particularly delineated': if there is a discrepancy between the description in the contract and the plan, the plan will prevail over the contract where the words 'more particularly delineated' are used. But, that phrase should not be used unless the plan is to scale.

Sometimes, of course, you get a plan included in the contract or transfer that is not actually referred to by either of the above phrases. In that situation, the plan can be looked at in order to identify the land only if the written description in the contract or transfer (or other available evidence such as other title deeds) is unclear. Source: Law Society’s Conveyancing Handbook (10th edition; £64.95). © Practical Lawyer