Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

indemnity clause

Read a random definition: signature loan

A quick definition of indemnity clause:

An indemnity clause is a part of a contract where one person promises to take responsibility for any harm or damage that might happen to the other person. This is also called a hold-harmless clause or save-harmless clause. It is different from an exemption clause, which excuses one party from liability altogether.

A more thorough explanation:

An indemnity clause is a part of a contract where one party agrees to take responsibility for any harm or liability that the other party may face. This clause is also known as a hold-harmless or save-harmless clause. It is the opposite of an exemption clause, which relieves a party of liability.

Here are some examples of indemnity clauses:

  • When renting a car, the rental agreement may include an indemnity clause stating that the renter is responsible for any damages to the car during the rental period.
  • A construction contract may have an indemnity clause where the contractor agrees to indemnify the owner against any claims or damages arising from the construction work.
  • A software license agreement may include an indemnity clause where the software provider agrees to indemnify the licensee against any claims of intellectual property infringement.

These examples illustrate how an indemnity clause can shift the risk of harm or liability from one party to another. In each case, the party with more bargaining power (the car rental company, the construction contractor, or the software provider) is requiring the other party to take on more risk.

indemnitor | indemnity contract

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
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
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.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.