Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

colorable transaction

Read a random definition: Hansard

A quick definition of colorable transaction:

A colorable transaction is a sneaky deal that looks real, but is actually fake or wrong. It's like when someone pretends to sell something for a really low price, but they're just pretending. If a court finds out a transaction is colorable, they won't let it count. This can happen with other things too, like when someone pretends to have an important job or a big claim, but it's not true.

A more thorough explanation:

A colorable transaction is a type of transaction that appears to be legitimate but is actually fraudulent or invalid. This term is often used in hindsight when the transaction is proven to be invalid. It is similar to a sham transaction, which is also a fraudulent or invalid transaction.

One example of a colorable transaction is the sale of a painting worth $100,000 for $10. In the case of O’Neill v. Delaney, the court refused to uphold this transaction because it was colorable. This means that the sale appeared to be legitimate, but upon further inspection, it was found to be fraudulent or invalid.

Another example of a colorable transaction is when a person sells a car to a friend for $1. While this may appear to be a legitimate transaction, it could be considered colorable if the seller is trying to hide the true value of the car from creditors or other parties.

Office, title, and claims can also be colorable. For example, if a person claims to be the owner of a property but does not have the legal right to do so, this claim would be considered colorable.

In summary, a colorable transaction is a transaction that appears to be legitimate but is actually fraudulent or invalid. Courts will not uphold these types of transactions.

colorable claim | Colorado

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.